Federal Election 2010: Which party will support Aviation?

[Horatio Leafblower]

The Aviation industry is enduring a death by a thousand cuts, and is constantly left out of policy decisions and funding.

Successive governments (of both flavours) have ignored, prostituted, used and abused the Aviation sector - especially General Aviation - while funding roads and railways from consolidated revenue.

In the interests of prompting debate:

- Which Party do you think might HELP our industry to grow in 2011?

I attach the Aviation policy for the major parties below.

Nationals:

Maintaining regional access to aviation services

For the seven million Australians who live outside our capital cities, regional aviation is an especially important link to the rest of the nation, providing transport, goods and medical services to and from large centres. It is essential that regional aviation is supported, since many regional routes are
of limited commercial value, with smaller carriers struggling with rising overheads and economic difficulties.

The Nationals will retain the Remote Air Service Subsidy Scheme (RASS) so that isolated communities continue to receive a weekly passenger and freight service. The RASS subsidises flights to more than 235 communities which
would otherwise not have a regular transport service.

The En Route Charges Scheme fully refunds Air Services Australia’s air navigation charges for a number of regional airlines operating smaller aircraft and for aero-medical operators such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The EnRoute Charges Scheme helps regional airlines to maintain viable services to isolated areas.

From 1 July 2008, Labor limited the scheme to existing routes and service frequencies and from 30 June 2012 the scheme will be abolished for commercial regional airline operators. The Nationals will reopen the En Route Charges Scheme to commercial air carriers using the scheme’s pre 1
July 2008 criteria and will keep it beyond 2012.

The Nationals will continue and expand the Remote Aerodrome Safety Program to assist in the upgrade of airstrips in remote and isolated communities.

The Nationals will also support general aviation – that part of the aviation sector not involved in regular public transport (or scheduled) services. It involves small aircraft undertaking roles vital to regional Australia, such as charter and business flights, aero-medical services, commercial and private
pilot training, sports and recreational pursuits, and various kinds of aerial work such as agriculture and surveying. In 2005-06, the non-scheduled air and space transport sector comprised more than 1000 businesses, employing nearly 4000 people producing an industry turnover of nearly $1
billion. Australia’s general aviation fleet is ageing, with the average age of aircraft now 30 years.

The Nationals will introduce incentives to enable business to replace aircraft used for commercial activities and to keep regional Australia flying.

The Nationals will address the skill shortage in the aviation industry. We will build on existing regional pilot training schemes such as that operated by Regional Express including the establishment of a Regional Airline Pilots’
Scholarship Scheme.

Australian Labor Party

No published Aviation policy.

I think it might be in here:
Our Platform (http://www.alp.org.au/our-platform)
...but I can't read through all the weasil-words and wank speak :rolleyes:

Liberal Party of Australia

No published Aviation policy.

The Australian Greens

Here: Policy G5: Sustainable Planning and Transport (http://greens.org.au/node/798)

Australian Democrats

Who? :confused:

so...THERE IS ONLY ONE MAJOR PARTY IN AUSTRALIA WITH A CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES FACING OUR INDUSTRY AND THEIR POLICY TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. :ooh:

[Jabawocky]

Leafie....MATE!!!! why did you even bother with the Greens link :rolleyes: :ugh:

Well if you thought the last lot were tired and out of ideas..... the current lot rate worse!

It will take another 10 years to sort out the mess they are creating.:ouch:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Why did Australia's yobbo electorate turf out the Howard government?

1) Rising interest rates

2) Tough stand on illegal immigrants

3) Didn't embrace carbon trading scheme

4) Howard is an arogant little sh*t!

Yaaaaaaaaah Krudie! We loves ya! We know nothing about ya but we saw your little smilie face on Sunrise so you must be good.

Hang on a minute!

Hmmmmmm!

Why DID Australia's yobbo electorate turf out the Howard government?

Dr :8

PS: Has Australia ever prospered under a Labour government?

[Torres]

Interesting the Nationals are the only party with an aviation policy, considering their previous Leader was arguably Australia's worst Minister for Transport since Federation - until even he was out classed by the present Rudd Government incumbent!

[PA39]

:) Great post Forkie

Yep....full employment
Record low interest rates
Country balance sheet in surplus

Makes ya wonder mate......what the f##k were people thinking ! time for a change?? well they certainly got that! Krudd will be thrown out next time around BUT who picks up the mess....who is to pay for the gross irresposibility.....us.

PA39

Oh by the way......no party benefits from aviation, pilots or operators don't swing governments, so care factor for all parties concerned is -10.

[Trojan1981]

Seriously?
I didn't vote for Rudd, nor did I vote for Howard (If Howard had won, we still would have had the down turn, ops normal). Labour or Liberal? It doesn't matter! They are all the same self serving scum. They come from the same schools, the same universities and join whichever party is the most convenient at the time. They spend their entire political lives looking after themselves and their mates. Then, after they have sold all of our essential infrastructure to private enterprise (who squeeze the public for all we are worth) they retire into their cosy little private sector consultancy positions.

Labour, Liberal, Nationals et al are all centre-right parties. It doesn't matter who you vote for, the outcome will be the same. Politicians stand for nothing but greed. The next election will be run and won, and nothing will change.

Cynical? No, just realistic...

[Jabawocky]

Trojan

You have some underlying truths in your post, however history has shown time and time again that the left side of polotics with its idealistic dreams always spends up the kitty.

Yes no matter which way it goes you get a bunch of pollies.....but the lesser of the two evils is more what this is about. After the Menzies years we had Whitlam and hawke/Keating and now Rudd. Fraser did not help that much but you have to admit that the Howard years were some of the best we have seen in 30 or so, and remember the first half of it was not on the back of a mining boom at all, it was bloody tough beginnings.

Yes it is true the worlds GFC was going to have an impact on everyone even if Howards team were still in, but by now we would be in far better shape had they remained there, have a look at Torres post here Henry review and aviation - Page 2 - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=5676952&posted=1#post5676911)

Forkie rarely speaks out on political things....but that was GOLD! :D

[ozineurope]

It is intersting that the Nats publish an aviation policy when they know there is no hope of it ever getting coalition support. The Nats will never govern in their own right so - any policy document is just spin.

Why did the Australian people vote Labor?
1. AWAs simply bad IR policy. If the reforms planned for 2009 had gone through we would have been no better off than before the 8 hour day ruling. That was the crux of the policy - no worker empowerment at all.
2. Howard and Costello were ruling Australia very firmly as a duocracy. It was irrelevant what or why the people wanted change, they knew better and refused to listen to public opinion.

Whether it was better for Labor or Liberal to be in power during the GFC, well maybe Australia coming out of the GFC much earlier than anywhere else was fuelled by minerals and those companies that are raping Australia, but some of the credit goes to a party unfettered by 1960s thinking.

Tin hat on, foxhole dug!

[Josh Cox]

Rudd didnt win the last election, Howard lost it.

Do you remember "Work Choices" and the "AWA" ?, all children of the Howard Government.

I personally would have voted for a deaf mute retard with six fingers in a guerrilla suit before Howard.

[TonKat]

Along the lines of what trojan wrote - I recap - YOU VOTE FOR A POLITICIAN, YOU GET A POLITICIAN.

The problem would seem with the latest government having been in power for only a relatively short period and having done so much to unravel all the work - some good, some not so good work of the previous government is how can any party say with confidence that they can get anything back in shape?

Bit like - how far do you unroll a ball of string before it isn't worth rolling up again?:}

[Tankengine]

You understand of course that "Family First" is nothing about families but a group of rabid right wing religious zealots?:ugh::ugh:
I would prefer to vote shooters party, at least they don't hide behind devious names.:p

[Worrals in the wilds]

I'm with Josh. I think the Libs forgot that a lot of their regular voters work for wages and found Work Choices very intimidating.
Not all Lib voters are Toorak bankers, and not all people with an interest in workplace rights are Labor voters.
The Libs forgot that, and paid the price at the ballot box. The unions have also forgotten that, and have alienated a whole two generations (X and Y) in the process.

Personally, I find that voting Labor is a bit like eating Kentucky Fried Chicken. It's one of those things you do occasionally because it seemed like a good idea at the time (or because there's no alternative option), but you usually live to regret it :ooh:.

[Old Fella]

Good to see that the Rudd government is continuing the Labor tradition of bleeding the so called "rich" to give to the so called "poor". This rubbish about us all sharing in the mining boom profits is pure Sherwood Forest stuff. If we all own all the resources why are we not all out there digging it up, putting our finances at risk to explore for the resources etc, which is what the mining companies and their shareholders do. Get real Mr Rudd. Better still, get voted out of office asap.

[43Inches]

Rudd didnt win the last election, Howard lost it.

Coalition policies did seem suicidal, maybe the Libs saw the GFC coming and intentionally threw the hospital pass to Labor. Wait a few years and reorganise the bench for another long stay after KRudd makes a mess of an unwinable situation. Although that would indicate some sort of long term plan from a political party so it's not very likely.

[Jabawocky]

Gooday Tonkers :ok: Didn't see you there last week...where were ya hiding! :suspect:

Agreed the IR legislation was really dumb....and I did not agree with the finer points however we would not have the debt from a spending spree and now a tax on all things productive now if the morons had not voted in KRuddie and Co.

[Josh Cox]

Jaba,

however we would not have the debt from a spending spree

Without that spending spree, what do you think would be the present unemployment rate ?, note we were not the only country that saw stimulating their economy as necessary to avert a possible recession ?, many countries still had very severe recessions, we did not have one.

Geez, people like to whinge and groan about nothing.

I am not a fan of Rudd, but if Howard / Costello were voted back in, it definately would have been worse for the little people, the turd sandwich that would have been work choices mod 2 and no stimulus ( more unemployed and small businesses down for the count ).

Old fella, why not tax profits on big mining companies ?, every other business has its profits directly taxed. After the mining companies removes all of our natural resources, then what ?.

[Jabawocky]

Josh....mate tell me you have not read Torres's post earlier.

Sure stimulate the economy a bit, but do not let it become a massive free for all that is nothing short of a gross waste of funds.

I run a small high tech engineering company, let me give you one tip, its not all as glam as the media hype it up to be. We are doing better than most, and let me say we are not setting any records either.

Aprt from some banks etc that are reaping it in.

There is not a lot of sense in doing the throw money in the air and letting it blow around in the breeze. Serious public works like roads airports hospitals...... generate job, not plasma TV's and big nights on the p!$$ for the great unwashed.

End of rant.:mad:

[morno]

Agreed Jaba.

I sure as hell did not support the government giving out money willy nilly to every man and his dog (dead dog in some cases). I would have, however, supported the government putting it towards infrastructure that we needed.

Look back to the 1920's during the recession then, what did they do? Built the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Why did Krudd seem to think everyone buying a plasma TV, would be better than building highways, hospitals or other vital infrastructure which are badly needed?

morno

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Do you remember "Work Choices" and the "AWA" ?

I do indeed! I guess your perspective depends on where on the dung heap you sit.

I first became an employer in the Fraser era when sacking someone was as easy as - "Hey you! Pack up your stuff and f*ck off right now!"

And I was an employer in the Hawk/Keating era when sacking some was as easy as - "Look, I have given you a hundred and forty thousand warnings - all carefully documented in this book. I have spent more than a hundred thousand dollars on counselling for you and had you retrained fifty times. Please, please, pleeeease tell me how much I need to pay you to pack your stuff and f*ck off? Anything, just name your price"!

Yay Work Choices and AWAs!

Dr :8

[ozineurope]

And so endeth the lesson on why AWAs were dropped from Lib policy.
For every reasonable and responsible employer there was one who did not give a brass razoo about workers or their families or how they spent the super guarantee money.

And it came to pass that political parties realised that there were more workers who had the vote than employers.

The ALP are not the same party as the they were in the 80s, they too are full of lawyers who pretend they are in touch with the people and who can call a tax a levy. Heaven help Australia if Abbott and Hockey get the reigns though.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Because Morno throwing money is instant 'stimulus' whereas infrastructure takes a long time to put in place - especially in this modern era of infrastructure projects being endlessly delayed and the costs driven up by Environmental Impact Studies/Statements.

I think you will find that the SHB was NOT a depression era stimulus project - a piece of infrastructure like that would have been in the planning stages for a decade or more before the Great Depression. You will also find that the Australian Govt of the day did NOT take the Keynesian approach during the GD but actually the opposite (dramatically cut spending/public service wages etc) and as a result Australia was exiting from the GD after only a couple of years - a full decade + ahead of the Yanks - who went Keynesian.

Its interesting to compare recessions/corrections that occurred before Govts got hold of a large chunk of the economy (through personal taxation - around 1913 in the US) to those after. Beforehand Govts could do nothing and they were short lived events that relieved the economy of its imbalances and away it went again - after they started to be able to interfere they of course did and the results have been, without exception, truly bad. The current GFC is a product of political interference in the previous several economic corrections making them smaller than they otherwise would have been - the Tech Stock crash is an example. Greenspan lowered interest rates to silly levels and left them there thus turning a correction that would have effected very few people into a housing bubble that effected everyone.

I would have to agree that Howard's workplace reforms cost him Govt - Labor's FWA is no better + we have all the other baggage the economy is currently being saddled with. Personally I believe Australia would have been in a MUCH better place right now had Howard/Costello won. What is economically more sustainable - a short blip of higher unemployment (debatable if it would even have happened) in a structurally sound economy or the massive stimulus debt/wastage and Australia being made a laughing stock with the proposed new super profits tax?

[Under Dog]

Chimbu
What do you call the BER than? That has taken more than 12 months to get going and that has been a dissaster with plenty money being rorted by very few with in the community and the insulation issue don't get me started.

The Dog

[ozineurope]

Chimbu

Not that you need my agreement - but I do agree with your post.

The only reason I voted Labor was becuase of the poisonous erosion of worker's rights that was Work Choices. If I could have maintained Costello and Howard without that policy - who knows.

Truly the ALP are a disappointment and have done nothing to deserve the support of the majority of Labor voters, let alone other groups within the community.

[Another Number]

Don't Aussies always end up with the government they deserve? ;)

Nahhh! If that were true we'd have Sarah Palin as PM! :eek:

Much as I hate KRudd (who's a sainted genius compared to that dip stick Senator Conrod), all those who think Howard & Co carefully crafted "the best years of our lives" are missing the point that the guy had the Reagan like luck to be around at the right time ... plus ...

Who sold off the airports? :suspect:


__________
Its easy to live it up as "Economic Heroes" if you just sell everything in sight...

[Torres]

Josh

Do you remember "Work Choices" and the "AWA" ?, all children of the Howard Government.

In all sincerity, have you seriously looked at the basket case that is now called Fair Work Awards? My estimate is that 80% of employers do not understand the new rhetoric - including the Fair Work staff - and 80% of Australian workers may not be correctly paid.

Australia's industrial relations legislation is now beyond redemption. Work Choices was far from ideal, but with a little mature tweaking it may have been the de-regulated industrial scenario needed by both employers and employees.

[Fonz121]

I'll be voting Family First

ahahahaha




I'll admit Ive been a life long Labor voter but won't be this time due to the Internet censorship proposal. I couldn't give a rats about aviation policy as there is none. Def won't be voting Abbott.

Whats one to do when one major party wants to censor us and the other is run by a religious nut job who opposes everything?

A secular PM by 2020

[Horatio Leafblower]

Australian pilots have made it probably the most efficient industry in Australia

Owen - it's about so much more than IR, although that is one of the hot topics for any employee.

What about airport privatisation?

What about CASA & ASA Cost recovery?

What about CASA regulations?

What about the cost of compliance with those constantly changing regulations?

What about the knock-on effects on the slowly shrinking GA industry: loss of "uneconomical" fuel facilities, loss of maintenance expertise, loss of maintenance support?

Many of these issues we see in aviation are common problems across many industries - our particular problem is that our margins in Aviation (and GA in particular) are so small, yet the industry is so important so so many aspects of Australian life.

I would suggest that the Nats are the only ones with a policy because they are the only party that isn't totally weighted towards the cities, and they can actually understand the importance of Aviation to their communities.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I don't count the BER as nation building infrastructure like a snowy river scheme was. I would not be at all surprised if the BER was an example of political ideology meeting political opportunity.

The insulation 'stimulus' has actually put that industry to sleep until the imbalances (huge oversupply of insulation) caused by political interference are worked out of the system. On top of deaths/house fires/houses made into potential deathtraps the insulation 'stimulus' has actually CAUSED increased unemployment because not only have the vast numbers of new employees in that industry lost their jobs but several 1000 long term employees have too because their employers have a vast supply of insulation batts that have no demand.

On the subject of Howard's Industrial Relations reforms I will just say this - Its all well and good having a high minimum wage and all sorts of employee empowerment IF that decision is made with full knowledge and acceptance of the costs. Politicians DO KNOW the costs but don't care. The public at large DO NOT KNOW the costs and (mostly) don't care. Employers DO KNOW the costs and DO CARE.

A high minimum wage causes unemployment. A high dole promotes unemployment as a reasonable alternative to employment. The inability to sack an employee who is not performing not only removes the employers fundamental human right to run his business as he sees fit for his own betterment and, by natural extension, to the benefit of his other employees, but ALSO removes that job from the reach of a potential employee who might really want it/need it and enjoy/be good at it.

I'll ask this question - Is society as a whole and an individual school leaver better served by our current system or would it/he or she be better served by a system that allowed an employer to pay them what they are really worth (which may be a lot or very little depending on qualifications) and getting them into the workforce where they can start building qualifications and work their way up the pay scale?

To suggest the ratio of mongrel employers to decent ones is 50/50, as one poster above did, is simply unrealistic. Business' just don't survive long term if they are managed/owned by mean spirited incompetent bastards.

[Stationair8]

Labor's great aviation achievements over the decades,
1. Charlie Jones in the Whitlam government,
2. Hawke and the 1989 Pilots dispute
3. Hawke governments setting up the Federal Airports Corporation,
4. Hawke government flogging of airports to local councils,
5. Hawke governments curfew on Sydney airport
6. Hawke government numerous name changes for DCA
7. KRudd about to root the FIFO operaters with his nationalisation of the mining industry,
8 Albenese being in charge of aviation

Greens aviation policy rack up as many frequent flyer points at the taxpayer expense, while saving the world from global warming.

[The Chaser]

Horatio

When did these things below [your list] start going really badly
it's about so much more than IR, although that is one of the hot topics for any employee.

What about airport privatisation?

What about CASA & ASA Cost recovery?

What about CASA regulations?

What about the cost of compliance with those constantly changing regulations?

What about the knock-on effects on the slowly shrinking GA industry: loss of "uneconomical" fuel facilities, loss of maintenance expertise, loss of maintenance support?

Many of these issues we see in aviation are common problems across many industries - our particular problem is that our margins in Aviation (and GA in particular) are so small, yet the industry is so important so so many aspects of Australian life.

I would suggest that the Nats are the only ones with a policy because they are the only party that isn't totally weighted towards the cities, and they can actually understand the importance of Aviation to their communities.
Oh yeh, thats right, during the last Liberal/National Coalition :} :D :p

The Transport Ministerial Goon Squad Quartet [former Federal Government Transport Ministers]

NATIONALS ;) - Sharp, Anderson, Vaile, & Truss

Is Truss the current shadow?? What has he said or done?

Sorry mate, get real :hmm:

That is not to say the current dunce is any better for Aviation :yuk:

Chuck
Business' just don't survive long term if they are managed/owned by mean spirited incompetent bastards. Unless of course they are the only employer in a particular profession, and the employer is the Government ;)

[Horatio Leafblower]

G'day Chaser

I was ranting to one of my students today about the state of the industry. He asked "Who should I vote for?" and so I looked up the policies.

I have only reported what I found on the net, which is what all of us already know: Aviation does not matter to mainstream Australia so long as they think they're getting cheap fares on the J curve.

I am more than aware of the Nat's track record on this; John Anderson was my local member for a good many years. He was addressing the Chamber of Commerce in 1998 and I stood up and asked him about the state of the aviation industry. Many of my points made above were relevant then too.

His response was that "We recognise that it's very important, but I think you will find it was the Hawke Labor government that created all those problems".

I wasn't quick enough to respond "If it's important then why aren't you doing anything about it?"

I worked for Col Pay at the time, his opinion (like Torres') was that Anderson was the worst Minister for Aviation this country has ever seen :yuk:

[Josh Cox]

Jaba,

Sure stimulate the economy a bit, but do not let it become a massive free for all that is nothing short of a gross waste of funds.

Agreed, giving the money to the bogans / walking unwashed was probably not the best way to spent it (in terms of tax payer value for money) , but it was the quickest way to inject it directly into the economy, paid on wednesday, spent by wednesday night.

Yes, plasma screen etc etc, how else would you suggest it be directly injected into the economy ?.

To put it into perspective, we have a rental house in Perth, rented by bogans, they were two weeks behind in rent when the stimulus package was paid, did they pay their rent up to date ?, no !!!, the dumbasses purchased a massive plasma, well after taking them to court and doing the whole " ceasure and sale court order " on them, they lost there plasma ( who said the court system does not get it right some of the times :} )

[The Chaser]

:ok: Horatio, mate I know the frustration. None of them are worth a pincha goat sh1t.

I know from experience that people like Truss will pretend to be all caring and sabre rattling in oppo. In government, they will run you down without even looking back to see who they ran over. Cold hard reality.

KRUDD [or Jules :}] will more than likely replace Albosleezy after the next poll [if they get re-elected].

As for MRABBBIT .... mate he is loopey enough to put Bronwyn Bishop :eek: ... or maybe Ironbar Turkey :} ... or maybe Littl' Cris Whyne [I doubt Bananaby would get a run at Transport though ... but then again :bored:] at our helm.

Hava think about that :E .... hat .... coat, I'll see me self out :}

[ozineurope]

Well living under the CD is another thing entirely. The only reason they prosper in europe is becuase the alternatives are too frightening and too mired in past transgressions.

[Peter Fanelli]

Forget which party claims they will support aviation, what you need is bums in seats.
So whichever party will allow business to prosper which in turn will provide employment.
It's business that supports aviation, not government!
I know that's not what you socialists want to hear but tuff toenails!

[Chimbu chuckles]

ozineurope if you want to look at a political experiment gone horribly wrong just look around you. The EU/euro experiment is about to be put to the ultimate test politically, financially and socially. They CANNOT bail out PIIGS because there just simply isn't enough money to fill those holes unless they put the printing presses into overdrive. The Germans will not do that - the ECB is functionally a German institution - because their memories of the results of hyperinflation are too raw.

The fringe EU countries should NEVER have been invited into the eurozone because they were NEVER financially sound in the first place but, NO, the idiot EU pollies in the usual political quest of more power brushed those inconvenient facts aside.

The EU experiment was, allegedly, all about never having another 'WW2' - German shame about their national excesses of the 1930s/40s have until recently had them determinately 'European' in their national psyche rather than 'German'. That is changing and now you're going to have the Germans (the financial engine of Europe) asking their politicians "Ahhh, bail out the PIIGS - Bist du verucht!!!!!?"

Voter backlash will be extreme. The euro becoming worthless, with all that entails, because the Greeks wouldn't work in an iron lung? I'd be very worried about a resurgent nationalist movement - not good - but pendulums always swing past the middle and out to the other extreme.

The Brits/Swiss staying out of the euro will come to be seen as very lucky (for the Brits) and very savvy (for the Swiss). They, at least the Swiss, would have known full well that ALL previous efforts at a common currency/multi country union have failed sooner rather than later.

[ozineurope]

Chimbu - spot on.

There are rumblings here already about a return to the DM. Not sure how strong the sentiment as it seems to be the fringe right who are most vocal. The greens and CD have pretty much gouged this country of much of its innovativeness. A lot more group think than I would like thanks.

There is a veneer of efficiency that this country puts out to the rest of the world, live here and you find that is just global spin. The country is mired in one dimensional thinking and a lack of desire to get things moving. Most community service projects (road works etc) remind me of the 80s in Australia, very slow, very labour intensive and never to be completed lest people be out of a job.

Many German people find the EU irrelevant, those that have any gumption to read about or learn about it that is, and many of the 30 to 40 year old age group do not wish to recognise the lessons of the 40s and find it offensive that the rest of the world still remembers.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Oh and to answer the thread starter - none - you just have to vote for the party MOST LIKELY to get the hell out of the way (relatively speaking) and let capitalism do its thing - the rest follows.

I'll give you a hint - Expecting to take a 40% dividend from a company you are not a shareholder of, and have no capital at risk in yourself, is not getting the hell out of the way and letting capitalism do its thing. If this tax goes through - and I don't believe it will - WA/QLD FIFO ops will be decimated as well as the employment prospects of many 1000s of Australians not connected to aviation and the super nest eggs of millions of Australians. Think they will be going on holidays via airlines after?

Personally I am wondering how long before Rudd trots out a junior minister to break the news that he's changed his underware - I mean mind.

Why don't I think it will happen - well if you were the CEO of a multi billion $ multinational mining company with competing (for the investment $) interests all over the world what would you do if this tax stands? I would be investing where I get the best return for shareholders as is my fundamental responsibility as CEO - I don't do that I get sacked. Even if I was stupid enough to WANT to invest billions in mining ops in Australia would international banks lend me the money with this uninvited new shareholder possibly deciding at some point 40% isn't enough after all?

How can Rudd climb down from this lunacy and not look even more politically impetuous than he has over ETS, Insulation, BER, Illegal Immigration, Population growth, food watch, fuel watch and on and on?

This is big - he may actually have taken a step too far.

[Trojan1981]

@Chimbu
Spot on about Europe
So far we have all posted statements suggesting that pollies can't be trusted!

[Jabawocky]

Josh

They lost their plasma.....you purchased the most expensive TV you are likely to own:eek:

Yep that is the moronic mentaility of a large number of their supporters.....no wonder Kevvie was popular:rolleyes:

Give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach him to fish for himself and he will feed the whole family/village.

J:ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

I just REALLY wonder about single issue voters.

Fonz121
I'll admit Ive been a life long Labor voter but won't be this time due to the Internet censorship proposal. I couldn't give a rats about aviation policy as there is none. Def won't be voting Abbott.

Is there truly nothing else about Rudd that gives you pause?

Abbott is a religious nutjob? Remind me again who has organised, I would argue cynically, to be filmed outside a church every Sunday?

Abbott is certainly a man guided by the principles of a mainstream religious faith but note it wasn't him suggesting internet restrictions. In fact I have seen no credible reports that indicate he is in any way extreme in his religious beliefs - he did change his mind about becoming a priest - that would indicate to me a fairly realistic approach to life albeit one guided by judeo christian principles that any reasonable person would be hard pressed arguing against. I was born and raised Catholic and now consider myself non religious but I see no problems with voting for a man like Abbott who, while I don't agree with everything he says, on balance is one of a remarkably small number of fundamentally moral people we have now in politics. I wouldn't consider not voting for him because he believes in a faith that has been bedevilled by a tiny % (in the grand scheme) of paedophiles - is that the basis of your dislike of Abbott Fonz121?

Owen Stanley has indicated he voted Labor because of Howard's Work Choices legislation - I think Owen is in the company of 100s of 1000s of voters. I think its fairly clear that single issue voters probably cost the Liberals the last election. Politically naive, even arrogant, of the Libs to put in place legislation that had the potential to be so misrepresented in the MSM so close to an election but what % of these single issue voters actually read and understood that legislation as opposed to being stampeded by the MSM? What % have read and understood the detail of Labor's Fair Work Australia?

I have not read either but I will give some examples - Rudd's wife's business where she made millions was one that was facilitated by Howard's legislation - a mates wife working in QLD Education relates that the WC legislation was mercilessly and horribly applied by the very left wing management of that entity. Several people I know who run very successful small businesses (and who could be fairly described as REALLY good bosses) tell me quite clearly that if their employees understood completely Labor's FWA and demanded all that was within that legislation their businesses would become untenable and go broke.

So which IR legislation was/is worse for Australia and Australian employees - one where nasty bosses could abuse staff but that had (eventually) protections against that (and lets remember the ultimate protection against this is not legislation but the fact good staff leave and the company goes broke thereby relieving the economy of an entity that shouldn't exist) or IR laws which if enacted in totality would destroy highly profitable businesses that employ many people and are owned and managed by bosses with a genuine respect and empathy for their employees?

Edited to add: Does anyone seriously believe Labor's FWA has had ANY impact on the numbers of are$hole employers or their behaviour?

[Arnold E]

managed by bosses with a genuine respect and empathy for their employees?
Wow Chimbu, that's fantastic, can you tell me the exact, or hell, maybe an approximation of the percentage of bosses that fit that description. Hey, I dont know, only asking. No guessing now.:ok:

[longrass]

THE AUSTRALIAN SHOOTERS AND FISHERS PARTY strongly support GA in Australia. They support AFAP and an inquiry into pilot terms of employment including a full overhaul of the Award.

They also support the introduction of laws into parliment that support the capping of fees by airport operators and an inquiry into CASA fee structure.

They represent both the shooters and fishos in the community and is run by several high ranked officials, including a sitting member that is strongly involves in GA.

Definately worth supporting.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Chimbu,

I have no problem with Abbott as long as he is prepared to separate Church and State on health matters, particularly regarding women. He has not been able to do so in the past, but anyone can learn.

I voted against the Libs in the last federal election on several issues. Firstly, on their IR package, secondly on their emasculation of the federal public service (particularly the border agencies) while loudly proclaiming that they were tough on border protection and thirdly because I got the feeling that given one more term, Howard would have had himself voted Dictator For Life, a la Julius Caesar. IMO they were in too long, got too comfortable and needed a spell in opposition to rethink their strategy.

I have read the Fair Work Act (all three hundred pages) and I don’t believe anyone understands it fully. However, I was not going to vote for Work Choices. I’m not Labor by any stretch but I do work for wages, I heard my own employer’s plans to take full advantage of the Work Choices provisions and they were scary.

While I was fully in favour of reforming IR legislation (I also have experience with a small business that spent the better part of a year getting rid of a completely incompetent employee), in my opinion, a winding back of the unfair dismissal protections was enough to address that issue. There was no need (and it turns out, no public support) for individual contracts, and there is always a place for collective representation (union or otherwise) in larger companies. A small business is a different environment from a medium-large business, where the boss may not know or care what your name is, and is generally completely removed from his/her workers’ needs and concerns.

Additionally, no one considers themselves a bad boss. In a large company, I worked for a complete despot who would tell everyone that listened what a great people person he was, and how his ‘door was always open’. In reality, about the only person that door was open to was the Union rep, who regularly reminded him of his legal obligations regarding intimidation and consultation.

There was much public whinging from employers about how hard it is to get rid of a problem employee. In my experience (as above) it was difficult and a lot of paperwork, but certainly not impossible. Our very small business (my second employer) managed to do it without paying experts, so I fail to see why any other business couldn’t take the same steps. It was a matter of finding out what was required, counselling and documenting accordingly. Total PITA, but not impossible.


let’s remember the ultimate protection against this is not legislation but the fact good staff leave and the company goes broke thereby relieving the economy of an entity that shouldn't exist

Sure, in Utopia. In the real world, people have mortgages, family commitments and fear. Management intimidation and bullying are alive and well in many medium - large companies, and the individual employee is often too frightened to speak out and too financially committed to leave (which usually involves a temporary pay cut). No one likes unions very much, least of all their members, but they do provide a platform for employees to negotiate terms.

I didn’t like Rudd and Co and I suspected they’d be a f-up, but I wasn’t about to vote myself reduced conditions and bargaining power. It’s all very well for the Libs to whine that they were misunderstood, but I don’t believe they were. Their proposed legislation forced individual workers to do battle with large, well funded companies without protection.

From a rationalist point of view, they should have done the maths and worked out that the electorate has more workers than employers, and therefore you will never win an election pandering to employers at the expense of workers. They will only win the next one if they restore voters’ confidence in their IR platform.

As employer and employee, this is probably not an issue we will ever agree on. You may be a good employer (and kudos to you if you are) but there are still plenty of bastards out there, and while they pay the wages they will still have the upper hand over their workers without legislative safeguards.

[Jabawocky]

Arnold E

I am one of the type CC is referring to and treat employees like one big family........and the FWA thing...down your part of the world, go talk to the bloke who runs Riverina Airmotive....he went along to a seminar about the new FWA and his reaction was :eek::mad::eek::mad::uhoh::uhoh::{....... best summed as ...close the doors and retire on the dole!

Of course he did not and neither have I, but I can cerify exactly what Chuckles has just posted, and I wish he was wrong, but he ain't.

J

Worals........clearly you have never worked for me. I have good people, its easy to look after them.

[Arnold E]

Jabba, I know Andrew, good bloke and I like him, but on the other hand , I have never worked for him.
I have also yet to find an employer that doesn't think that any form of industrial legislation is not the end of civilization as we know it. My boss is also a fair and reasonable bloke (and also a friend of mine ) but he is also bound by legislation. If you think that all employers are benevolent........your dreaming. I have worked for employers that would be quite happy in a gulag and if it wasn't for legislation, their employees might as well be in one.:)

[Chimbu chuckles]

I am an employee too and have spent my working life outside any form of labour laws that protect workers from bad employers - I certainly agree workers need some rights/protections.

It doesn't take utopia for an employee to change to a better job it merely requires a little drive. If you deem your employer a cretin then you look for something else - if needed you gain extra qualifications to do so. You might even look back and thank the cretin for making you get off your ar$e if you were honest. My best mate growing up and who learnt to fly at the same school at YSBK couldn't/wouldn't leave Sydney to get a flying job (even years later when as a CP I rang and offered him one) and he is now a guard on suburban trains.

I have been an employer too - as a CP a couple of times. People have told me I was a good boss although I have disciplined and sacked people upon occasion - those individuals probably think I am a c--t.

Someone asked above what % of employers I thought were 'good' vs 'bad'. I would bet money that if you were able ask to every employee of every company in Australia what they thought of their employer some would say great and more would say not so - and the difference would be more to do with the employees work ethic/maturity/honesty than whether the employer was a bastard or not.

In 30+ years working from paper boy through sailing instructor, glue factory worker, taxi driver, GA to airline pilot I can only think of 2 bosses that were truly evil/dishonest despite working the last 25 years with NO industrial protections. Most were great as long as you did what you were paid to do - your job.

No doubt the Libs were deemed to have overstayed their welcome and I agree they were getting a bit arrogant - I was desperately hoping they would have their ar$es handed to them on a plate WITHOUT actually losing govt last time around. Labor/Rudd scared the fk out of me.

Whatever Howard/Costello's faults were they pale into insignificance compared to the last 2 years and especially the last week or 3 - this super profits tax is HUGE in terms of wealth destruction across our society NOT just in the board rooms of mining companies and overseas investment banks.

Read this from a US based investment newsletter.

Blunder From Down Under: Australia's Mining 'Super Tax' Will Squeeze the Global Recovery (http://moneymorning.com/2010/05/07/mining-super-tax/)

Rudd/Swan are also hell bent on destroying telstra and its shareholders - An Australian company which, whether you like them or not, provide telco services in areas NO ONE else is interested in. Tanner is saying the Govt is perfectly happy to go it alone and will be perfectly happy with a '6 or7% return' after 15 years - that is < .5% annual return assuming technology hasn't left their NBN behind and its worth ANYTHING at all to sell which is the basis of any return on taxpayers money. Chances of that? Zero - think about the internet technology of 15 yrs ago compared to now. Tanner et al are lying.

Telstra's goose is cooked | Alan Kohler | Commentary | Business Spectator (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Telstras-goose-is-cooked-pd20100507-57S9U?OpenDocument&src=kgb)

This is not center left/fiscal conservative (remember Rudd saying that? Liar) socialism its marxist class warfare.

Rudd and Swan are clueless as to the outcomes of their ill conceived legislative efforts.

Yes Howard/Costello benefited from a better economic times but at least they KNEW what to do with their good fortune - KRudd/Swan have absolutely NO IDEA.

From $50 billion surplus to $150 billion in debt THEN Kick the ONE thing that is keeping Australians above water during the last few years in the teeth?

They're behaving like irresponsible teenagers.

People will suggest Howard lied about children overboard (actually debatable) but just consider the lies of the last few months - every time they open their mouths Rudd/Swan/Gilliard display their ability to mislead or downright lie. The latest in a very long line is linking the 40% Resource super tax with increased superannuation. There is NO link - the 40% goes to general revenue and the super is provided by employers. Only one thing happens when employees become more expensive - there are less of them.

To link all this back to the thread and aviation - can anyone think of a better way to damage the aviation industry than what labor is doing now?

[Arnold E]

. Only one thing happens when employees become more expensive - there are less of them.

Logic would therefore dictate, we should all take a cut in wages and conditions. GA drivers will love that!

[Chimbu chuckles]

Not so. If a company is profitable that entity will pay what it needs to (and no more) to get the right pilots - if those pilots suddenly become too expensive because, for arguments sake the Govt passes some new laws, and the company has no ability to raise its revenue in line with those raised costs (limited market) then it becomes unprofitable unless fewer pilots work harder. If they were all already flying 900hrs/annum then they can't work harder so maybe the company goes broke and none of them have a job.

Would the Qantas group employ as many pilots as they do if everyone was on the mainline award? Can't see it - I am not saying they couldn't pay every pilot employed the current mainline award I am saying there would be a shedload less pilots employed in the QF group flying bigger aeroplanes. And its no use saying "Its only 5$/ticket". A year or so back when oil went to $150/bbl and the airlines put fuel surcharges on tickets fwd booking for J* and VB dried up - LLC pax went back to the busses/didn't travel and holidayed at home.

Same in GA - you could argue, and I would agree, that there are too many pilots and too many GA companies (started often by pilots who couldn't, for whatever reason, make it to an airline job) chasing limited work and that leads to lower entry level wages (and returns on investment for the owners). There are limited ways this situation can change - fewer companies employing FEWER pilots flying fewer aeroplane commanding a better return on capital from the limited market is about the only way - how that is achieved is interesting. I think the only way is raised barriers to entry to the profession (higher standards for pilots). You could of course legislate a 50% increase in the GA award and the FEWER remaining pilots in the remaining companies would be very happy indeed but there is NO WAY KNOWN that there would still be the current numbers of pilots in the industry. At least raising the bar, standards wise, until few people can pass culls the herd down to truly motivated individuals - a 50% increase in the award would simply raise the number of unemployed pilots because only the very best would get the fewer jobs. Its all about incentives and what market signals you want to send.

At some wage level jobs evaporate and it varies from industry to industry and within industries. The only way for the system to function is through millions of people interacting with 10s of 1000s of companies and EVERYONE acting as free agents in their own self interest (with a good umpire and a few rules). Otherwise we return to the 70s and endless strikes/pattern bargaining.

An economy works the same way - millions of people making billions of decisions based on self interest that collectively send signals to 'the market' that is populated by companies that allocate capital to make stuff that meets the needs of the millions of people.

That is why socialism/communism doesn't work - because 4 people cannot make decisions that come even CLOSE to being as good as the millions do - example, pink batts.

That is why Rudd/Labor worried me 2 years ago and should scare everyone witless now.

[Arnold E]

example, pink batts.Wasn't the problem with the pink bats, that unscrupulous employers sent untrained young people to do jobs that they were not capable of doing? Nothing wrong with putting pink bats in ceilings as such. All would have been ok had all employers "had genuine empathy" with their employees. And that happened with legislation, imagine what would have happened if Howard and the Mad Monk had got their way and there was no (IR)legislation.
Unfortunately I think it is not going to be very long until we find out:{

[Horatio Leafblower]

millions of people making billions of decisions based on self interest that collectively send signals to 'the market' that is populated by companies that allocate capital to make stuff that meets the needs of the millions of people.


Ahhh Ayn Rand. Like all of these philosophical types, a bit right and a lot wrong.

Wages are only one part of the overall problem, boys, and it says a lot about the limitations of the self-interest principle that nobody looks at the larger issues.

Infrastructure is one such issue. Australia simply does not have a large enough population (and thus, will never have a large enough Aviation industry) to make airports economically viable - especially not in regional areas, but Bankstown and Jandakot's managers have found the same in capital cities.

So - should "the market" decide that there should only be access to the capital cities for the very few extremely rich?

The telecommunications network is the same - private enterprise can never make a big enough margin on the rural and regional services, so Telstra's city clients are subsidising the provision of services to their country cousins.

The "Self Interest" brigade will turn around and say "stuff them, that's where they want to live, bad luck if there's no phone services."

Should "the market" decide that people in rural and regional Australia don't deserve telephone services?

"Economic Rationalism" is only rational if you live in a social and moral vacuum. "The Market" is a civilised term for the law of the jungle.

I will be the first to stand up and say that Labor's first (and hopefully last) term has been a major disappointment (to say the least). But many of us - despite the economic success, or maybe because of it - felt that there were some areas where the Libs policy needed to be softened.

Are we an enlightened, civilised, educated society?

...or are we a pack of savages merely swapping Cannibalism for purist Capitalism?

[Fonz121]

Howdy Chimbu

I just REALLY wonder about single issue voters.

Whats wrong with voting based on a single issue? If one party wanted to re-introduce conscription would that single issue be enough to sway your vote? Or pick any area you feel strongly about one way or the other. I don't usually vote based on a single issue but I happen to strongly oppose any government censoring of the net and seeing as though old Tony hasn't come out and opposed this proposal its fair to say he's all for it too.

Is there truly nothing else about Rudd that gives you pause?

Yes there is, but they are issues where Abbott isn't any better.

Abbott is a religious nutjob? Remind me again who has organised, I would argue cynically, to be filmed outside a church every Sunday?

Yes he is. I never said Rudd was any better. This is another reason I won't be voting for either.

I wouldn't consider not voting for him because he believes in a faith that has been bedevilled by a tiny % (in the grand scheme) of paedophiles - is that the basis of your dislike of Abbott Fonz121?

I don't think anyone who believes in any Faith as fanatically as he does should be put in charge of the country. A few issues directly linked to his faith,

- Women's rights
- Gay rights
- Euthanasia debate

Before you point it out, I do realise Rudd isn't much better in these areas. That's why I would like to see a PM not linked to religion. So they can govern on behalf of everyone. Not just the deluded. But I guess Im a bit stuck for choice in that area.

Looks like it will have to be these guys... The Australian Sex Party (http://www.sexparty.org.au) :}

I especially like this policy,

"Ending the tax exempt status for religions."

[The Chaser]

:D Horatio :ok: Well said Sir.

Fonz
Looks like it will have to be these guys... The Australian Sex Party (http://www.sexparty.org.au) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif :E .. but most importantly with the minor :} parties is where their preferences :E [puns intended] flow.

Remember to fill out the preferences for yourself ;)

[Worrals in the wilds]

It doesn't take utopia for an employee to change to a better job it merely requires a little drive. If you deem your employer a cretin then you look for something else - if needed you gain extra qualifications to do so.


Agree wholeheartedly. I've been there and done that, took a temporary pay cut and left a public service 'job for life' in the process. However, not everyone has the drive or is in the position to do so. This doesn't mean they should be exploited and as you say, there need to be some protections.

A lot of legislation exists to protect cretins from other cretins, such as the various traffic acts, the criminal codes and a whole lot of other Acts that prohibit stuff we'd never be stupid enough to try. IR legislation is no different.


In 30+ years working from paper boy through sailing instructor, glue factory worker, taxi driver, GA to airline pilot I can only think of 2 bosses that were truly evil/dishonest despite working the last 25 years with NO industrial protections. Most were great as long as you did what you were paid to do - your job.


Most employers are reasonably decent. I don't agree with the 50% figure that was suggested before. I would think 5% is probably more accurate and consistent with both personal observations and the estimated prevalence of Antisocial Personality Disorder. Employers like the Cafe Vamp owner, who was recently convicted of failing to provide a safe workplace after one of his employees committed suicide after enduring serious harassment, or many pink batts installers who jumped on the exploitation bandwagon conveniently provided by the Labor federal government :yuk:.


Wasn't the problem with the pink bats, that unscrupulous employers sent untrained young people to do jobs that they were not capable of doing?

These employers are a prime example of the 5%. They failed to provide even basic, life preserving training. If the insulation installers had been unionized, their union would have made them aware of the dangers. They weren't, and they were obviously too naive to do their own research. Many people are naive and/or cretinous. They do not deserve to be exposed to unsafe or suicide inducing work practices because of that. The unions have failed today's workers as much, if not more so, than the Libs when they drafted Work Choices, because at least the Libs didn't pretend to care about workers' rights.

I can't stand the current federal government, they are much worse than I expected. They are lying hypocrites who lurch from self made disaster to self made disaster. I sincerely hope they get voted out next election, and I also hope that the Libs have learned their lesson re IR stuff. Barring major gaffes or Inquisitors bursting Aliens style out of Abbot's throat they'll get my vote again before the country is bankrupted by the next media friendly stunt or greedy tax grab to pay their bills.

Anyway, still way off the original topic, sorry. We probably agree on more than we disagree. As for aviation, the mining tax grab is certainly not going to help the industry one iota. Neither will the next green bandwagon fad the current government is bound to fall for. K Rudd has been a proclaimed anti-aviation politician for some time (his own well used Government jet notwithstanding :yuk:) so there's no reason to expect any improvement.

[Duff Man]

Back to topic, I'm fleshing out some of the policies that haven't been discussed/debated yet:

Rudd Government
Surprisingly not mentioned on this thread but I seem to remember a 246 page national aviation policy statement (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/nap/index.aspx) published last year. Their sales spin:
Australia needs a comprehensive aviation framework that brings together all aspects of aviation policy into a single, coherent and forward looking statement.

It is surprising that no Government has previously outlined a medium to long term Aviation Strategy before now.
...

Ensuring aviation contributes to future economic development
Enhancing safety and security
Improving planning and infrastructure
Promoting sustainability - reducing the impact of aviation on the environment


Australian Greens
From their transport policy (http://greens.org.au/node/798)
19. a transport system, including roads, railways, airways and sea-lanes, that is safe, environmentally sound, efficient and reliable.
25. major airports located to minimise social and environmental impacts.
27. better transport services in rural and regional areas.
29. environmental costs incorporated into the cost of air travel.

Family First
Hampered by Steve Fielding (http://www.stevefielding.com.au/) ... people like this should not be electable ... (from ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2831712.htm) March 2010 ... his performance was laughable)
TONY JONES: So where did human beings come from?

STEVE FIELDING: Well, as I said, I believe that people, you know, started from being created. But, look, there are some other views out there about people evolving from other types of animals.

Shooters and Fishers
No aviation policy but an interesting view on population capping (with obvious economic growth impacts)
http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/policies/
Commonwealth Government should place an immediate moratorium on (all) new immigration applications. Such moratorium to remain in place until the Commonwealth has carried out an audit of Australia’s natural resources, in particular, water and energy, and until a referendum is held to set the optimum population levels.

Howard Coalition Govt
An enlightening article (http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/06/was-max-the-ansett-axe-the-virgin-party-gets-the-scoop/) from Ben Sandilands described the conflict between protectionist Anderson with small-L Howard under Max the Ansett Axe.
Moore-Wilton, now the chairman of Sydney Airports Corporation and the Southern Cross (formerly Macquarie) Media Group, was the head of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Department when evacuated from Washington DC after the 9-11 attacks with John Howard on board Air Force 2, the Vice-President’s 747 airborne command centre.

“We were being flown to Honolulu where we were being asked a ransom to be flown back in some stranded [Qantas] jets,” he said.

It was a flight that coincided with news that Ansett Airlines had collapsed in the aftermath of its abandonment by its owner, Air New Zealand, in the most emotionally charged (but far from largest) corporate collapse in Australian history, but which had been pushed back to page three and beyond by the terrorist attacks in the US.

Moore-Wilton said John Howard was not surrounded by his usual team of advisors and had received a communication about a proposal to Cabinet to spend $750 million “propping up Ansett and rescuing it from its collapse”.

On the long flight Howard received a 10-point document as to the reasons why Ansett should be saved, and Moore-Wilton said he took a pencil to them, cutting out seven or right outright.

He said Howard came to the strong view that “it was time for the airlines to stand on their own feet and in their own right”, which meant Ansett’s hopes for a political reprieve had been snuffed out before Air Force 2 landed at Honolulu, where several Qantas 747s had been diverted on their way to Los Angeles and San Francisco when news of the 9-11 attacks lead to warnings that US air space was about to be closed and ‘locked down’.

Moore-Wilton said: “I think the decision the PM took on that flight allowed Virgin Blue the oxygen to grow and flourish.”

(At that time John Anderson, the acting Prime Minister, was actively pursuing media and political support for an Ansett rescue, only to run into the brick wall of Howard’s disapproval even before he had returned).

[Chimbu chuckles]

No Horatio not an Ayn Rand fan - like you say there is a little too much extreme in her writings.

Nor do I like the idea of the law of the jungle and I have absolutely NO problem with city folk subsidising the bush - I don't even consider it subsidising - we absolutely need them out there doing what they do.

We do need laws and umpires - as long as they are smart about the incentives they create.

I do try to take an economists view of things when it comes to understanding why stuff happens the way it does. Incentives are a vastly more powerful influence on us as individuals and as a society than most people believe until the economist's understanding of 'incentive' is understood. No one thinks about life much in these terms but I find it a very good way to understand the world around me better.

The only way our modern society differs to Ayn Rand's version of utopia is that our incentives are constantly being modified by all sorts of externalities be they govt intervention, advertising etc. Her version of utopia didn't allow for human nature enough.

When a govt passes legislation it creates new incentives and destroys others. Our current tax rules are a classic example - they are a disincentive to savings and an incentive to invest in real estate and one of the outcomes is low savings and high mortgage debt.

Rudd's pink batts fiasco is another example - prior to his intervention there was a fairly balanced market for roof insulation - supply was meeting demand. Then he announced free pink batts for all and there was created a different set of market incentives that were based on artificial demand. If all those people had wanted insulation all they needed to do was pick up the phone and by doing so they would have collectively sent a signal to the market and it would have ramped up production to meet it. Probably slowly/carefully giving them increased margins and better profitability and an ability to employ more at better pay. It would have been a slow controlled and sustainable increase.

Instead Rudd created a gold rush mentality and supply was boosted very quickly as the demand side said "well ok, its free after all". When it all unravelled - and it was always going to, the exact same thing has been done in other countries (NZ as an example) and the EXACT same thing happened including the house fires and accidental deaths - then demand was instantly shut off by the govt cutting off the money and a massive oversupply of labour and materials suddenly appeared and has all but shut down the industry. 10s of millions of dollars of insulation is sitting in sheds and NO ONE wants it unless its free.

The same thing happened in the BER (Builder's Early Retirement) - artificial demand causing all sorts of rorts and waste.

The Resource super tax changed the incentives for miners and investors - Its now not worth risking Billions in new capital for projects and looking for undiscovered resources because it just isn't worth doing IN AUSTRALIA when the return on capital is so low. The foreign investors that provide the capital (remember our savings rate is very low so we borrow internationally - another reason Govt/RBA/Banks have little ultimate control over interest rates) simply say "Nope, Africa/Canada/etc looks like a better return for MY money". Rudd/Swan have created an incentive for sundry other miscreants in various 3rd world countries to think about have a go at grabbing at the same golden ring. Foreign investment deserts those countries too and before you know it Krudd has created an artificially constrained supply and prices are inflated long term instead of what has always happened before which is supply exceeding demand eventually and prices falling.

People are strange creatures - how many do you know who will drive half way across town to save a few cents a litre on petrol blowing whatever saving that lower price indicated.

Govts MUST be extremely careful about the incentives they create/destroy and the signals they send out as a result. Probably NO Govt is as careful as they should be but this one is not even aware care is needed.

They could have done things differently if their ideology was not one of centralised control. How about lowering taxes and incentivising savings through modified taxation legislation and let people decide what they need to do?

The only downside to that is political - it doesn't give the sugar high instant gratification that politicians need to convince people to vote for them again - which is the ONLY thing that incentivises MOST politicians. But it might have been a lot better for everyone in the slightly longer term.

How many of you know that not much more than 100 years ago there was no such thing as income tax? Federal Income tax wasn't enacted in Australia until 1915 although various states enacted different levels of income tax in the late 1800s. The way (ever increasing) income taxation has modified incentives across society ever since is REALLY interesting reading.

[Worrals in the wilds]

They could have done things differently if their ideology was not one of centralised control. How about lowering taxes and incentivising savings through modified taxation legislation and let people decide what they need to do?
That sounds a bit like the Henry Review proposals (judging by the introduction, which is as far as I've got) which will no doubt be consigned to the bottomless filing cabinet marked 'reports from experts who made valid points and were ignored by the government that commisioned them'. Tell me if I'm wrong.

- it doesn't give the sugar high instant gratification that politicians need to convince people to vote for them again -

The weird thing about politicians over the last ten years or so is that none of these sugar highs last until the next election. The bubbles always burst well before that. I'm stuck trying to identify their objectives, whether they just want the media grabs, or whether they seek instant support in the hope that enough of it will stick come election time. It's like government has become some strange sort of reality show where you get to vote each week. Maybe they're all using the same media advisors :}.

[Arnold E]

I heard on the radio yesterday that BHP had announced that the Olympic dam expansion would still go ahead, making it the biggest open cut mine in the world. So, you see, the sky has not fallen in here in South Oz despite the new tax:ok:

[frigatebird]

Chimbu's
"How many of you know that not much more than 100 years ago there was no such thing as income tax? Federal Income tax wasn't enacted in Australia until 1915 although various states enacted different levels of income tax in the late 1800s. The way (ever increasing) income taxation has modified incentives across society ever since is REALLY interesting reading."

We all know it was Howard that introduced the 'never have a GST', that changed the dynamics, of a income tax on those earning who could afford it and a spending tax on all at the point of sale as a second tax, so fundamentally- that gave the last Government its reserves of money. Even they were surprised what came from the pockets of all (whether employed or no) and flowed into the Government coffers. 'Course, there was some talk of roll-back for a while, but not for long.. Couple that with State owned asset sell-off, there was plenty of money in Goverment hands (at the expense of citizens buying power) going into the GFC. Its been wasted.

[Josh Cox]

I do not claim to be an expert on IR laws, but I believe the Pilot Awards are now in some respect binding for all employers ( as of 01JAN ).

If true, this is something that should have happened many years ago, Labor should be praised for that.

Some earlier posters were drawing comparision between Rudd and Hawke, Hawke was a staunch unionist , yes yes 89'ser, we know all about it...............

Rudd is one of the most liberal labor leaders I can recall, perhaps he can be found on the middle ground between the two parties core values, essentially a good place to start.

[Jabawocky]

Gooday Josh,

Given his track record I think you are being a little optomistic :p

Hey have you found a flying gig up there in CNS yet?

J:ok:

[Josh Cox]

Jaba,

Track records are very subjective.

Damned if you do damned if you dont, atleast he's not sitting on his hands.

I think Julia's hot.

[Chimbu chuckles]

at least he's not sitting on his hands.

Josh I would respectfully suggest his track record of the last 2 years is NOT subjective at all. Can you name two things he has promised to do that he has actually done besides saying sorry for something that never happened (stolen generation) and signing the Kyoto Protocol which is now officially dead?

Can you point to anything he has done that has worked as advertised?

Rudd is Australia's Tony Blair (without the charisma) - after 13 years of Blair/Brown the UK is 1 Trillion pounds in debt and 75% of the Brits in a recent poll have thought about immigrating in the last 12 months to escape what comes next. The Uk is not in significantly better shape financially than Greece and look what is happening there.

If we extrapolate out the rate of spend of the Rudd Labor Govt to 13 yrs we get $1,300 Billion. Ridiculous you say - could never happen? I bet the Brits felt the same way 11 years ago.

Couple that with State owned asset sell-off, there was plenty of money in Goverment hands (at the expense of citizens buying power) going into the GFC. Its been wasted.

Indeed - and all the State Govts were Labor Govts except WA more recently

[Josh Cox]

* developing federal education syllabus,

* consolidating health, trying to reduce the size of the state health junkets,

* insulation, yes poorly done (damned if the did, damned if they didn't ),

* rollback work choices,

* make some awards law, i.e. pilots,

* some major infastructure roll outs, including schools and hospitals,

* stimulus, put aside your hatred of labor and spare a thought if there was no stimulus, unemployment etc etc,

* tax the mines, why not, they are making huge money, most of which leaves the country, what happens when all the natural resources are gone ?.

* Sorry, well atleast they can stop banging on about it and move on,

* first australian PM to be caught in a strip club ( personal favourite ) :) ,

* has committed to global warming, still lots of naysayers on this topic, but apparently the government is convinced it is real,

* suspended processing of illegal immigrants from IRAQ and Afganastan,

* making it more difficult for foreigners to buy property ( an attempt to slow or market/prices),

Sure most of these are subjective as to whether they are a success or not, I am not a fan of Rudd, but they certainly have not sat on their hands, also I despise Howard/Costello over work choices.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

* developing federal education syllabus,Yeh, great idea..until you crash into the local branches of the teachers unions and state education departments

* consolidating health, trying to reduce the size of the state health junkets,Constitutional issue, because of this, Health and hospitals are all hot air

* insulation, yes poorly done (damned if the did, damned if they didn't ),Costello kept telling the same guys to bag it...until Swan came along and gullibility leads to a fall

* rollback work choices,Funny that, the ALP still haven't delivered on this one...couple of bits like wrongful dismissal and contracts but all the rest is still on the books

* make some awards law, i.e. pilots,Have they?

* some major infastructure roll outs, including schools and hospitals,Still waiting for ANY infrastructure that actually delivers on promise

* stimulus, put aside your hatred of labor and spare a thought if there was no stimulus, unemployment etc etc,Call me synical, but to release tranches of this plasma money about two weeks out from when retail data is collected and then use that data to prove we are not in recession is a bit too cute. What had happened to Jerry Harvey's shops when all the money stopped flowing. In all honesty, no one will ever know if any other way would have worked..KRudd chose this way and spent bucket loads of the surplus for no good reason...If you want to know how it went, just take note of the number of large TVs thrown out on the side of the road. Really positive outcomes for the economy, what!

* tax the mines, why not, they are making huge money, most of which leaves the country, what happens when all the natural resources are gone ?.And where was KRudd and EVERY poli that ever walked when these companies set up in the Pilbera with absolute squat infrastructure. The WA and Fed governments did not raise a finger to put in one single piece of infrastructure..no rail..no ports..no nothing..every last bit was paid for by the miners BEFORE they even made a single dollar. Remember the parable of Ol 'Henny Penny? nobody helped bake the cake but they all showed up for their piece of the action..On that point? Hawke and his FBT almost decimated the miners over the low cost infrastructure they supplied to get their workers to come and work in the "most hospitable" clims of the NW of Aus

* Sorry, well atleast they can stop banging on about it and move on,

* first australian PM to be caught in a strip club ( personal favourite ) And the worm took the weazle way out...the equivalent of "I never inhaled" ,

* has committed to global warming, still lots of naysayers on this topic, but apparently the government is convinced it is real,The KRudd is convince the tax grab is real...there is a difference!

* suspended processing of illegal immigrants from IRAQ and Afganastan,But did he ever admit that he fecked up by changing the rules that allowed this BS to restart?

* making it more difficult for foreigners to buy property ( an attempt to slow or market/prices),Same as above, the KRudd relaxed the FIRB rules and then found out why the rules were ther in the first place

Sure most of these are subjective as to whether they are a success or not, I am not a fan of Rudd, just despise Howard/Costello over work choices. And the devil you most despise was actually good for the country...KRudd has been a disaster from day one!

[Josh Cox]

OBD,

Yeh, great idea..until you crash into the local branches of the teachers unions and state education departments

Sounds to me more like resistance to change, nobody likes being told something, and IMHO teachers are quite opinionated. Try changing your childs school during year 11 or 12, even just two suburbs and listening to the list of BS reasons from the principle why marks from previous school scores can not be counted, this will definately limit your childs future prospect, why shouldn't changing schools be a simple process ?, there needs to be a single line in the sand.

Still waiting for ANY infrastructure that actually delivers on promise

Contracts have been signed with construction companies, start dates set, capital works take quite sometime to get rolling.

Really positive outcomes for the economy, what!

Many countries had stimulus packages, many still went into recession, we did not, that is a fact.

KRudd has been a disaster from day one!

Is this your opinion or fact ?, if you claim it to be a fact, prove it, surely you will not object to your theories being reviewed by us, your peers ?.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Regretfully, Josh. That truth will not come out until the other team gets the books...The ALP has never been known to be open and honest in reporting their position whilst sitting to the right of the speaker.

[Arnold E]

And the other political side has :confused:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Yup history shows quite clearly the difference between the left and right political parties. After Whitlam, Hawke/Keating and now Rudd Australia was/is deeply indebted and the Liberals spent/will spend years paying down the debt. ALL the state Labor govts are bankrupt as we speak.

I used to believe we were saddled by too many layers of govt and should rid ourselves of state govts but no longer. Its not the layers (Fed/State/Local) that is the problem its the sheer size of each - we can no longer, and haven't been able to for decades, afford them.

* developing federal education syllabus

And what is IN that centralised education syllabus?

Quadrant Online - The Ideology of the National English Curriculum (http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2010/5/the-ideology-of-the-national-english-curriculum)

* consolidating health, trying to reduce the size of the state health junkets

No he is making a grab for some of the GST and adding a layer of Federal Bureaucrats - even the fella that helped design Medicare thinks its a fiasco.

* insulation, yes poorly done (damned if the did, damned if they didn't )

I have covered this already - not 'damned if he didn't' at all. It was a stupid decision badly implemented despite plenty of examples of what DOES go wrong in this particularly area. History is replete with examples of why this sort of thing NEVER works.

* rollback work choices,

You call relabelling and tweaking something a 'rollback'?

I have covered your next 3 points above.

* Sorry, well atleast they can stop banging on about it and move on,

NO. A good leader would NOT allow the view that Australia is a racist country with a history akin to South Africa to stand when its patently untrue and the facts are fully documented. This is why Howard would never say sorry because he KNEW there was nothing to apologise about - in fact quite the opposite. Why do YOU think the political left feels it must rewrite history and destroy our cultural inheritance?

* has committed to global warming, still lots of naysayers on this topic, but apparently the government is convinced it is real,

Utter rubbish - If that was true he would have followed through on his threat of a double dissolution election. The 'greatest moral challenge of our age' was nothing more than a cynical tax grab. He has abandoned it completely.

* suspended processing of illegal immigrants from IRAQ and Afganastan,

No, delayed for 6 months, there is a difference. Plus its was Sri Lankans and Afghanis. His handling of illegal immigration has been an utter debacle. 60 odd people drowned and the detention infrastructure groaning under the strain. And is there any evidence that its working?

This is the latest

Rudd decision to suspend applications for asylum from Sri Lankans and Afghans doesn’t seem to be detering many from risking their lives:

FIVE Australia-bound asylum-seekers who perished at sea set themselves adrift in a fatal attempt to find a passing ship after their wooden fishing boat ran out of fuel, food and drinking water. As the remaining 59 Sri Lankans from the boat arrived yesterday at Christmas Island after being rescued and the Australian Federal Police began investigating the incident, new details emerged about the tragedy.

* making it more difficult for foreigners to buy property ( an attempt to slow or market/prices),

It should be impossible but once again Rudd tinkered when he should have left well enough alone. Its right up there with doubling the first home sellers grant - VERY bad policy. Go back and read what I have written on incentives and sending signals to the market/economy. Tricking people into buying houses during the biggest real estate bubble in Australian history is a disgrace.

There is nothing subjective about any of this - except the MSM refuses to be objective and give people the facts.

[Chimbu chuckles]

When you are watching the Budget delivery tonight bare this in mind from Terry McCrann.

TONIGHT'S budget will be an entirely political document like no other in recent years, in a way that utterly exposes the emptiness of both the prime minister and his treasurer.

Now that might seem to be a statement of the bleeding obvious. Surely all budgets are political. They are after all put together and delivered by, well, politicians.

Indeed further, by definition, a budget just before an election like this one has to be at least partly directed at the, well, coming election.

So why do I say this is political like no other in recent years? Because some of the - indeed, all the - big decisions have been taken purely to get particular numbers in the budget papers.

Again this happens all the time. You cut or increase, say, health spending with an eye to the bottom line, you don't cut taxes to avoid sending the budget into deficit, and so on.

What makes this budget different - a return in some senses to a 'Paul Keating future' - is that some key decisions have been taken entirely to achieve a numerical outcome in the budget papers in a way utterly disconnected to anything of substance.

There are two big ones: the resources rent tax (RRT) , or as it is dishonestly titled, the resources super profits tax; and the ditching of the emissions trading scheme (ETS).

The RRT was unveiled a week ago. The question that hasn't really been asked, and so therefore not answered, is: Why?

The government had the (Ken) Henry tax review for nearly six months. Why was it necessary to rush it out a week before the budget? And then, not simply table the review but deliver the government's complete if very minimal response to it?

Nothing in the exercise was time sensitive - the big changes were/are going to start years into the future. It wasn't a beer and cigs exercise where the higher rates applied immediately.

The answer is very simple. By making the RRT in particular 'official policy', the money it raised, the money it is expected by Treasury to raise, will be included in tonight's figures.

It is not petty cash. The RRT will raise $3 billion in 2012-13 and $9 billion in 2013-14 - the last two years covered by the official budget forecasts.

So purely in order to be able to include $12 billion of (projected) revenue in the budget papers, Kevin 'Gougher' Rudd and Wayne 'Riskless' Swan, were prepared to deceive the resources industry and risk seriously damaging the nation by sowing genuine fear.

The sensible, the grown-up, thing to do would have been to unveil the proposed RRT, subject to discussion. But then, the money could not have been included in tonight's budget.

That alone shows both are unfit to continue in their roles. That they would so wilfully place budget form over policy substance to the nation's potential detriment.

Then there's the ETS. Again, why was it necessary to formally abandon it just before this budget? For exactly the same reason? Once formally abandoned, the ETS numbers come out of the budget.

Now with the ETS they come out of both sides of the budget. Both the money expected to be raised by the tax and the money handed out in compensation.

So if formally ending it is budget neutral, why do it?

The answer is even more damning of Rudd and Swan - and also a very big warning to anyone who believes they have really abandoned it.

It is all about only the one side - the spending side. Removing the compensation - totally artificially - cuts spending by over $10 billion a year from 2012-13.

But if it also removes a similar sum from the revenue side, what's the point?

The answer is that it enables the government to deliver on its promise to keep spending growth to 2 per cent year.

So we have a prime minister who welches on "our greatest moral challenge" purely - sorry, only - to meet a completely artificial budget number. And an utterly meaningless number at that.

A third big decision doesn't produce quite this sort of empty fiscal chicanery, but comes close; and also shows the aimless deviousness of our current 'leaders'. It's the NBN - the National Broadband Network.

Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner was gloating the other day that the opposition couldn't 'save' the $43 billion earmarked for the NBN by cancelling it, because it was an 'investment' by the government and so not in the budget 'spending numbers'.

Again that's a sterile, utterly childish but potentially seriously damaging exercise in fiscal form over substance.

Of course, we would save $43 billion of real money if we abandoned the utter waste and stupidity of the NBN.

In Tanner's world, don't worry about the waste of real taxpayer money, just focus on the artificial numbers in a budget.

Tonight we will get a hollow document from a cabinet of hollow children. To think there was a time when we had grown-ups running the country.

[mirage3]

Sorry, but did I misread the question? Sorry, how do you spell POLICY again?:rolleyes:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

About 21,000 licences in a population of some 23 million....and the reason why there is little support for aviation?

[Josh Cox]

Sorry Chimbu, but I do not think you have the ability to be objective on this issue.

For example:


Quote:
* consolidating health, trying to reduce the size of the state health junkets
No he is making a grab for some of the GST and adding a layer of Federal Bureaucrats - even the fella that helped design Medicare thinks its a fiasco.



Making a cash grab for GST with one hand and taking over the running of all hospitals with the other, to me it is clear you are not willing to look at the truths, you just hate ALP though and through, taking on the running of the whole health system is a massive undertaking.

My wife works in the medical industry, she draws her wage partly from medicare, in the past ten odd years that she has been in the industry, she has seen many people that should have survived illness quite simply not, why, lack of access to a multitude of services, services we have already paid for.

Like many state and federal departments, they appear to lose sight of their core values and the customers needs, they become massive corporate junkets, IMHO health in australia is a disgrace when measured up against the amount of tax payers money spent on it.

Sure next you'll state the ALP is not fixing it right, how long was little johnny in the throne and what bs was sold to us in his time.

I'll say again, I am not a Rudd fan, to be frank they are all appear to be a bunch of grand standing fools.

You seem quite certain every act is a tax grab, when then, does it go into his personal bank account ?.

If you've dealt with government departments you would have to know they carry a lot of dead wood and can be overly complex to deal with.

Insulation, I agree it was poorly done.

Quadrant Online - The Ideology of the National English Curriculum (http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2010/5/the-ideology-of-the-national-english-curriculum)

So what ?, sure they could find a writer that is happy with the changes, but that doesn't sell papers.

Most readers do not want to hear about kittens being rescued from trees by fireman or old people turning 100, they want to see carnage, anger, fights and police being beaten up whilst doing their job, quite sad really.

I get the feeling you guys are so bent on lynching someone that all information turns to a one eyed view that supports your thoughts, complete loss of objectivity, irrespective of the facts.

Sure the ALP's probably ballsed some stuff up, but surely they've got some of it right, even if only by chance.

The Libs are far from great saviours, you have a short memory if you think that.

I believe the days of being a voter dedicated to one party based on their published ideology are over, much of the voting will be on actual proposed policy and characters on the front line, for example, other than at gun point, who here would vote for Bob Brown ?.

One last point, the mining "super tax", if that happens, how quickly do you think that massive amount of money will pay off the stimulus debt ?.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Health is a state responsibility - Howard put an extra billion into healthcare but to what end?

I agree healthcare delivery is a disgrace but lay the blame where it belongs - STATE GOVTS bureaucracy - which have all been LABOR for a decade or more. If you think Federal tinkering with healthcare funding is the answer then I think you're being a tad naive. Rudd didn't earn the nickname Dr Death for no reason when he tinkered with Qld Health.

Healthcare delivery has been ruined by bureaucracy - in times past hospitals were run by senior medical staff but no more - how does another layer of federal bureaucracy 'fix' healthcare?

To those who ask what party has the best aviation policy I will say again - none - and its largely irrelevant - a 'good' aviation policy alone would not be enough to sway my vote. The sum of a political party's policies and history of delivery is the important thing. Rudd could trot out a great aviation policy tomorrow but it would be meaningless in the light of their demonstrated inability to deliver/manage anything but an attack on Australia's overall economic well being. Economic well being is the only thing that will facilitate a health aviation industry.

If you think taxing the mining sector heavily is good for aviation you need to sit back and take a more holistic view of the world around you.

If you expect the 40% RRT is going to pay back ANYTHING you're crazy. When resource prices crash back down again - which they always do - there will be not only NO revenue but the govt is taking on 40% of the downside risks too. Plus NEVER in the history of Australian politics have state or federal Labor Govt EVER paid down debt - its ALWAYS left for the Liberals to pay back when they eventually regain power. That is a simple fact of history.

[Section28- BE]

how long was little johnny in the throne and what bs was sold to us in his time.



Elected Feb/Mar??? 1996 and defeated 24 November 2007- "Just" long enough to retire $96 Billion of Debt.............. "Just long enough".

And that's the rub, Service/Infrastructure delivery has to be balanced against the "real" financial position.

$30mill Xstrata exploration project warehoused in North-West Qld yesterday- sure hope all those Accountants don't start looking side-ways at FIFO airframes, as they have been prone to do from time to time in days gone by when the weight comes on.:hmm:

Let alone- there maybe more yield and minerals investment stability elsewhere????

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Neice works with BG, SANTOS just pulled up on the gas line to Gladstone. A certain cocky electrician just lost a motza of money on a deal with Peabodies exactly because of this new tax...and it hasn't even made it to the Senate. This is one money bill that is going to cop some serious scrutiny.

As for you, Coxy, you cannot be a born Queenslander because you would have remembered what Wayne Goss and Dr Death dead to the fully funded, functioning health system in your state. Long Memory...must have a...lo..o..ong Memory!

Ideology has squat to do with it. When Goss won there was much rejoicing...when Goss finally lost to Borbidge, the state of Queensland was broke...all the fully funded superannuation was gone, all the funds from all the Ambo auxillaries was also gone..the taxes were gone and the huge royalties and freight charges exacted on the coal industry..also gone...Captain Bligh keeps the tradition going..raiding the community funds to prop up that Solar Panel scheme. And now the rest of Australia is finding out what Queenslanders with long memories already knew...Rudd is a little mandarin (as in bureaucrat) control freak that hasn't a clue how to control a piggy bank let alone a state or even federal economy.

Love or hate Joh..Queensland was buzzing and cashed up..under the ALP it is a basket case propped up by a huge resource boom in LNG and Coal.

[Section28- BE]

You don't mean, that they actually had (before they centralised the show and down-graded them) "Local" QLD hospital and ambulance Boards to administer such things- do you?????????........ now there's a thing!!!- isn't one of the core planks of the impending "Health Revolution" such a revolutionary concept???

Seems like there maybe some lessons learnt 20 years down the track- everything old is new again.......... even if it's borrowed from someone else and you destroyed it way back when.......:E:sad:;):E

I know I'm a cynic/pragmatic realist- hat, coat, I'll find my own way out, ta:cool:

Rgds
S28- BE

[Chimbu chuckles]

Oh how I miss Joh - best premier we ever had:ok:

[Stationair8]

The health system is rooted basically, to many shiny bum pen pushing ergonomic chair warmers on big dollars who spend their day reviewing policy at the state health ministers whim or minder's wants.

Look at the health spend over the last twenty years and then look at the next twenty years on the percentage increases, and you hope that BHP, RIO etc find lots of stuff in outback Oz to dig up and export to China.

[ozineurope]

And who was it, in the great wisdom of user pays and fiscal rationalism, that turned state hospital systems into businesses based on the US model? I am not that sure that it was a Labor state government. Certainly not in Richard's Court of WestOz.

The way of things politcal in Oz is you have a Liberal Government in the good times and a Labor one in the hard times. Which is the only party to invoke the military against unionists - twice - in the history of Australian politics? Which party led Australia during the 40s?

The mining industry will bleat for a while, just like they did in the GFC, the recession of the 80s and 90s and then they will get on with the business they are in. Gouging deep holes in the best country in the world and making billions of dollars. After all if it is only the profit that is taxed, remembering there are still a mulititude of fiscal incentives to dig holes, then the difference between a $2B profit and a $3B profit is probably about 20cents a share on the dividend to shareholders.

[Jabawocky]

Ozbus

you forgot, Capt Bligh is going to flog off the cash cow of Coal rail to plug a budget hole...........but you can only sell it once :ugh:

J:sad:

Joh did get stuff done even if it was by means not appreciated today.

[Josh Cox]

You old guys :), I was still stealing target underwear catalogues and playing nintendo when most of that happened.

Chimbu

Health a state issue, why ?, does it have to be ?, doesn't seem to be working real well in its present format.

OBD, nope, NSW.

I remember this:
http://www.danceanddance.com/dancers/Pauline_Hanson.jpg

Did a google search and found "some other" photos of Pauline I wasn't expecting.....................

[Jabawocky]

play nice.....they were not Pauline it was found......I doubt she was that good looking anyway:}

[Worrals in the wilds]

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL1635/12384616/22139911/387002066.jpg

Got to be a market for another print run by now :E:}

[Fliegenmong]

Sir Johannes "Joh" Bjelke-Petersen, KCMG (13 January 1911 – 23 April 2005), New Zealand-born[1] Australian politician, was the longest-serving and longest-lived Premier of the state of Queensland[2]. He held office from 1968 to 1987, a period that saw considerable economic development in the state[3]. His uncompromising conservatism (including his role within the downfall of the Whitlam federal government), his political longevity, and his leadership of a government that, in its latter years, was revealed to be institutionally corrupt, made him one of the best-known political figures in twentieth-century Australia.

Now, see, I am a fiercely proud Queenslander, but if Joh were alive today he may well be one of these clowns driving around with a 'SilverFern' stuck on his rear windscreen......Howard & Co., from that scoundrel Peter Reith onwards ensured that I cannot envisage a time when I will vote for the Libs ever again...ditto many friends.....some horrendous **** ups with Rudd & Co. sure, Garrett from the start was one .....but mates who were really and truly screwed over by 'WorkChoices', mates who were once rusted on Liberal voters...they now realise how worse off they were.....(They got the back pay :E) They well know in VERY REAL TERMS, they will be very much worse off under coaltion IR 'arrangements'

They know Big Tone the Budgie boy is waiting to bend them over...they ain't forgot....and they ain't so stupid to understand that it will not be called work choices....they've already been renamed by Big Tone's side...no amount of "forget what I was...think of who I am now" is going to help those fe*ked over by the association (Coalition) Mr Abbott is so very intrinsically entwined with.......

And while we are here, on this most esteemed of Cane Toad Wheels....has anyone ever asked the (Dis) Honourable Mr Costello, why he sold off so much of the nations Gold Reserves at such low value, claiming gold was dead if he were really so good??.....That is given the sharp rise in Gold shortly thereafter?? Why did he not 'hedge it'? Was the Mr Costello correct? Is gold dead??

[sprocket check]

Fliegenmong:

You don't work for the ALAEA by any chance, do you?

[Josh Cox]

Because the constitution says so

Where exactly ?, if it was so, would not Krudd already be on the front page of the paper being roasted by constituitional lawyers over exactly that ?.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Section 51...or rather what is not put down in s51. States can make laws. Basicly what is NOT in the Federal constitution is state responsibility.

[Josh Cox]

So, the constitution infact doesn't say so, if you see my point.....

Basicly what is NOT in the Federal constitution is state responsibility

I would hazard a guess and say there are many other area's managed federally that are not included in the constitution.

So I do not believe the inference of non inclusion mandates a state responsibility, to date, just not a core federal one.

Is it fair to say the constitution does not prohibit federal control, OR establish as a state controlled item, as suggested by cp ?.

[Horatio Leafblower]

G'day Josh

You're displaying your ignorance here son.

Australia is a Federation of states - the various colonies agreed to make an overarching government structure and give it certain powers.

Section 51 of the Constitution describes those powers.

The High Court has ruled again and again and again that certain things cannot be taxed or administered by the Federal Government, because it is not given that power under Section 51 of the constitution.

The Constitution is not a long document - I recommend you (and all young intelligent Australians) read it :8

[tinpis]

Sections 51-60

Section 51 – Legislative powers of the Parliament

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-



(xix.) Naturalization and aliens:


(xxviii.) The influx of criminals:

About time they repelled a few innit?


PM's office wanted boat arrival press release to spruik border protection spending | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/budget/pms-office-wanted-boat-arrival-press-release-to-spruik-border-protection-spending/story-e6frgd86-1225866094500)

[Josh Cox]

Thanks Horatio, have not read it since school, do you think this answer is correct ?:

Question:

Originally Posted by Josh Cox
Health a state issue, why ?, does it have to be ?, doesn't seem to be working real well in its present format.

Answer by Cynical Pilot:
Why? Because the constitution says so.

I am not aware of the the constitution stating that health can not be managed at a federal level.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I am not aware of the the constitution stating that health can not be managed at a federal level.

Yes it does, but you have to understand a fundamental of legal interpretation first.

The legal maxim is expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning that to include one thing is to exclude those things not listed.

If the drafters of the Constitutution wanted health to be a Federal concern, they would have said so.

If the modern generation wants it to be so, there will have to be a referrendum and the constitution altered.

Mind you, the Federal Govt can be quite creative in using other powers to effect control. For example, they have used the "External affairs" power to over-rule the Franklin Dam in 1986 and more recently I recall the Howard Govt using the Corporations power to do something creative (don't recall what it was) that might have been a bit dubious :=

[notmyC150v2]

Josh,

The constitution does not say what the Federal Government cannot do. It only says what the Federal Government CAN do.

If the Constitution does not provide a power for the Feds to do something, then they can't do it UNLESS the states cede them the power to do so.

This is why there is always huge interest in constitutional cases before the High Court because the Justices interpreting the Constitution have to read it to see if the Govt actually has the power to make the law being challenged.

[terry walls]

I suggest that you also quote Section 96 - which is the power most often used by the Commonwealth to become involved in what Section 51 leaves with the States.

[Josh Cox]

Horatio,

The legal maxim is expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning that to include one thing is to exclude those things not listed.


"Implies exclusion" or actually "excludes" ?

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: Definition from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/expressio-unius-est-exclusio-alterius-1)

[Worrals in the wilds]

UNLESS the states cede them the power to do so.
Can you argue that by their agreement, the State Premiers have done exactly that?:confused:
s51
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

xxxvii) matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Actually , the most famous one of late was Premier Kennet ceding Victoria's industrial relations laws to the Feds.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Horatio,
"Implies exclusion" or actually "excludes" ?
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: Definition from Answers.com


OK Josh - you might be right, but I was relying on knowledge that I learnt from Books.

So, since you're so good at finding stuff on the interweb thingy - why don't you go to Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) (http://www.austlii.edu.au) and find for me one - just one - legally binding decision by a Judge of the High Court of Australia in a question of constitutional law whereby they have found differently to the interpretation I posted supra.

(you'll Google that too I'm sure). :rolleyes:

[sumtingwong]

I think Julia's hot.

You were a sick puppy in the West Josh, I see CNS has made no difference. :ok:

[tinpis]

Warren Truss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Truss)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Warren_Truss.jpg/225px-Warren_Truss.jpg

This bloke knows what a Fokker is

[Jabawocky]

I always though Kev was as flash as a Rat with a Gold Tooth....:}

Rudd branded Chinese 'rat-f***ers' at summit (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1065166/rudd-branded-chinese-rat-fer-at-copenagen-report)

[fencehopper]

no matter who gets in they are going to keep me working untill i drop or pay off all their wastefull spending and they will screw up what's left of my pitifull super so i'll go for the one who will drop kick that pecker head CASA CEO out thru sydney heads. If that happens at least i will have just a little bit of my civil liberties left. other than that no matter who gets in it will be the same ol same ol. screw it all up then cut and run with a pay out that will equal more than i can ever earn in my remaining life.

what party will support aviation? none of them. not enough votes in it