Tony Albanese - Minister for Transport

[Sunfish]

Yawwwwn, since he is from Sydney, expect Qantas to keep its stranglehold on International Aviation capacity.

I guess roads, rail and Port Facilities outside of NSW and Queensland won't get priority either.

[Cobra]

Truly? & a good union boy too:hmm: I might have to come back to Ozztraylia, to straighten the place out;) I think it was stated on another forum, the "...the loonies are now in charge of the assylum..." Strap yourselves in guys n gals, enjoy the ride.

[Jabawocky]

I heard today that the port of Freemantle is having some issues already.......and us QLDers are getting the blame for the big swing!

Time will tell.

I agree the IR laws have been mostly abused by airlines and the like, the rest of industry can not get away with it, and that trouble has been brewing, but now the game is on I think.:uhoh:

J

[tipsy2]

Who on earth is Tony Albanese ?:hmm:

tipsy

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I hope Rudd knows what he is doing. The only creditable placement that I can see is Crean in trade portfolio.

[Pundit]

Our new Minister is an ardent anti-aircraft noise campaigner.

Suggest you have a look at the Sydney Airport Community Forum website for a insight......

[Walrus 7]

So maybe as soon as he takes up his role, friend Tony should be facing a swag of e-mails decrying the need for pilots to hold ASICs.

"[email protected]"

Let's let him know that we expect some things to change.

Walrus

[Taildragger67]

Oh Sunny,

Mate there's more to life than Sydney vs. Melbourne.

Ford or Holden, for a start...

[LewC]

Don't delude yourselves that Albo will have any sympathy for "overworked, underpaid" pilots,particularly those employed by the major carriers.This little man is from that faction of the Labor Party which proudly describes itself as the "hard left",otherwise known as the Extreme Socialist Left.Apart from his ideological bent he would ,if given the opportunity,close KSA and relocate it to somewhere like Goulburn. Ideally KSA could be developed as the worlds largest "affordable housing development"(i.e. slum) as well as having the added benefit of getting those noisy polluting aircraft well away from his Electorate.By the way anyone planning on doing a bit of sucking up to him shouldn't call him Tony.His name is Anthony as he will let you know if you try to get too familiar.

[Fris B. Fairing]

Our new Minister is an ardent anti-aircraft noise campaigner.
Not to mention Rudd and Swan - both card-carrying airport haters, although they are not averse to using them on occasion.

[Howard Hughes]

How long till we see parallel runways in Brisbane?;)

[Spaz Modic]

:} Old Tony OOPS! Anthiny Albinesy Minister for Movements. :eek:
"Parallel Runways in Brisbane? Ya already have parallel runways in Brisbane! Ya got one goin' that way and another goin' the other way!"
Oh Yeah! Are you jet jock Jacks and Jills gonna have fun with this turkey.:E

[Sunfish]

Hmmmmm....

This little man is from that faction of the Labor Party which proudly describes itself as the "hard left",otherwise known as the Extreme Socialist Left

I'm starting to warm to this guy....Maybe he will decide to minimise traffic and noise by ordering Qantas to run more direct flights to other Australian capital cities and stop funneling people through Sydney on there way to somewhere else. .

[Howard Hughes]

You just don't get it do you sunny? More people want to go to Sydney! Qantas aside, just have a look at all the airlines which operate to Sydney, that do not operate to MELBOURNE! They don't do it, because some pollie, or friend of QF tells them too, they do it because that is where people want to travel to.:hmm:

Surely if it was such a Government/Qantas conspiracy, Qantas would be asking the Government to force other airlines to ports other than Sydney! Leaving the cream of travellers for themselves, but that's not how it works is it?:rolleyes:

Cheers HH, (former Melbourne boy).

[Sunfish]

No Howard, your the one that doesn't get it.

Unless I am very much mistaken, aircraft require access to a "full service" line maintenance operation capable of fixing anything every 24 hours - up to and including an engine change.

Qantas had the stranglehold on this in the 70's and 80's since they were the only one operating B747. That forced every operator to fly through Sydney inbound or outbound, the exceptions of course being Air New Zealand, Singapore , Malaysia and Thai.

This meant that Pax had about three hours on the ground in Sydney inbound or outbound which effectively made Melbourne and Brisbane three hours further from New York and London than Sydney. This skewed overseas investment flows in NSW's favor (a critical factor in office locations is access to direct flight).

When Ansett tooled up for the B767 it had a chance to break that monopoly since we had to deal with wide bodied aircraft, glass cockpits, big turbofans etc. I did the numbers and some preliminary planning about adding on some licence coverage to handle a 747 turnaround. I had letters of support from Lufthansa and one other operator. The whole thing looked quite profitable for an incremental investment on what we were already spending.

I pitched the proposal and was told point blank "There is no way Abeles is going to allow us to bust Sydney's monopoly on 747 TFC's".

I'm not sure what the current situation is, but I would be surprised if any European or American airline could fly to Australia without flying through Sydney inbound or outbound to get Qantas to clear defects.
......and even on my last international flight with Qantas about five years ago, on what was supposed to be a direct flight, the aircraft went U/s (spoiler actuator) and there were no spares in Melbourne.

P.S. As for "people want to go to Sydney", mate after the red eye from New York, followed by Los Angeles to Australia, you will get out anywhere the aircraft lands. If the airport was at Yamba for example, that would have become the centre of tourism and overseas IT and Merchant banking.

[Peter Fanelli]

So I guess any day now all the SID'S and STAR's for Sydney will be changing. :hmm:

[yarrayarra]

30 November 2007

The Hon. A Albanese
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600


Dear Anthony,

I am the President of Civil Air, the Association that represents the professional and industrial interests of Australia’s Air Traffic Controllers.

On behalf of the members we represent, please accept our congratulations both on attaining Government, and your appointment to the Transport portfolio. We look forward to a productive working relationship with the Federal Labor Government.

I wrote to Martin Ferguson, in his capacity as Shadow Minister early in November 2007 regarding concerns with Airservices Australia. He replied that to this point most comments he have heard related to CASA. I therefore write to you to state Civil Air’s concerns with both Airservices Australia and CASA.

Airservices Australia Staffing

The lack of qualified Air Traffic Controllers in Australia is a critical threat to the Air Traffic Control system. For at least five years Airservices Australia management have been advised by Civil Air and others of the looming staffing problem. From a group of about 1000 Air Traffic Controllers, human resources managers have estimated that 300 will leave employment with Airservices Australia in the next 3 years. Most sector groups rely on Air Traffic Controllers working extra duty (overtime) to maintain a complete service. Extra duty is supposed to be a short term solution to a short term problem, however Airservices Australia management are using extra duty as a long term staffing measure to patch up a problem created by inadequate recruitment.

Whist not training sufficient Air Traffic Controllers to maintain their own staff levels, Airservices Australia trains Air Traffic Controllers for overseas organisations. Whilst it may be admirable to assist overseas countries and organisations, and may also be a beneficial business venture, Airservices Australia must concentrate on the priority of providing sufficient training tosufficient Air Traffic Controllers for Australia.

Within the past month Airservices Australia management has instructed Air Traffic Controllers to operate on airspace sectors for which they are not qualified to provide short rest breaks within a shift. This is most affecting Melbourne Centre on night shifts. CASA has supported Airservices Australia’s position. Civil Air has received legal advice that the related instruction contravenes Civil Aviation Regulations. CASA has supported Airservices Australia’s position. I know of no other Air Traffic Services provider internationally that require unqualified Air Traffic Controllers to operate a position for which they are not qualified, let alone an aviation safety regulator that sanctions the practice. Civil Air has made representations to Airservices Australia on this matter, as we believe this is an issue critical to safety. Airservices Australia is making threats under industrial legislation and direct threats of legal action against individuals who resist debatably unlawful instruction.

Some areas of Air Traffic Control are undergoing their fourth managerial restructure in 18 months. Apart from the breaks in communication and management that these continuing restructures cause, one of the more recent restructures has resulted in approximately twenty staff being considered potentially surplus as Airservices Australia has insisted that the newly created positions must be covered by AWAs. This decision incompetently, unwittingly and unwisely triggered clauses in the existing Certified Agreement defining surplus staff situations. At a time when overtime is required to maintain an Air Traffic Control service Airservices Australia has created a situation where over 100 Air Traffic Controllers will no longer perform operational functions as they have been ‘promoted’ into non operational management positions while others may be made redundant, a situation brought about as the direct result of the mismanagement of the last restructure.

Early this year Airservices Australia embarked on an international expedition to recruit overseas Air Traffic Controllers. This recruitment has resulted in only limited success for such an expensive exercise. At the same time that Airservices Australia management has introduced a restructure that makes some staff potentially surplus they have also been trying to recruit overseas staff, a situation that is both unfair and unreasonable.

The lack of adequate staff is a business continuity risk that is starting to have an impact on Airservices Australia’s operations that is resulting in controlled airspace service degradations or closures in both the major centres and regional approach and tower services.

The provision of adequate staff, adequate both in number and qualification, is a management responsibility. Breaks in service caused by low staff levels are also a management responsibility and not the fault of already overworked controllers who do not attend work on a day they are rostered off duty to prop up an under resourced and failing system.

Fatigue
Airservices Australia uses a fatigue management system called FAID©. This system is used to predict the risk of a fatigue event and is designed to be used in a strategic sense to develop rosters.

Airservices Australia is misusing this tool in a number of ways. The first and most critical is that Airservices is not complying with the licensing requirements of the software. As this tool was one of the disclosed items when Airservices Australia sought insurance the incorrect use of FAID© may invalidate insurance policies that Airservices Australia has.

Airservices Australia uses the FAID© software in a tactical manner to assess short term staffing availability, contrary to the design specifications which state that the software is designed specifically for strategic purposes.

The FAID© software produces a numerical value that represents the risk of a fatigue event. The numerical value over which a person is unavailable is set by the operational organisation; in this case Airservices Australia. The cut off should take into account the task to be performed, the environment and the risk mitigators available. Airservices Australia has globally set the value at 80, equivalent to a blood alcohol level of 0.05%. Airservices Australia’s Air Traffic Controllers perform a number of different tasks from quiet sectors to busy and complex sectors. Air Traffic Controllers operate in a number of different environments from large centres to single person control tower and approach operations. Mitigators available in these disparate facilities range from direct support and supervision to a person being isolated and alone in a compound. Therefore the global fixing of a score of 80 as the benchmark fatigue risk value is a serious misuse of the software. A value of 80 may be the appropriate score in Melbourne Centre for a quiet sector on a night shift where there are other staff on duty and direct and immediate support is available in the event of a fatigue event. However if this is the case it should not be the appropriate score for an Air Traffic Controller in Perth Terminal Control Unit on a night shift where there can be constant traffic, the Air Traffic Controller is alone in the compound and any mitigator is both distant and remote.
To reiterate: every night in Adelaide, Cairns and Perth Air Traffic Controllers work for periods of over 6 hours alone and isolated with no provision for breaks and Airservices Australia self-assesses the risk of a fatigue related event at these locations as being the same as at the major centres in Melbourne and Brisbane where there may be dozens of staff on duty.

Civil Air has argued since the introduction of Airservices Australia’s fatigue management procedures that they do not satisfy the intent of “Beyond the Midnight Oil (Managing Fatigue in Transport)”, published by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts in October 2000. Airservices Australia needs to have a higher regard for fatigue in the safety critical aviation role that forms the basis of its business.

CASA
Civil Air is of the opinion that CASA needs to develop a culture of being willing to independently assess Airservices Australia’s claims whilst maintaining a focus on upholding Civil Aviation Regulations, an opinion that Civil Air would expect to be supported by the broader aviation industry and travelling public. It is not the job of a regulator to twist the interpretation of regulations or acquiesce to the demands of a business that, for craven profit pursuit or to cover up short comings in their management practices, seek to short cut or disregard the laws governing their operations.

Qualified Staff
As part of the policing of Civil Aviation Regulations CASA has given Airservices Australia approval to use inadequately qualified staff to operate Air Traffic Control positions. Either a person is correctly trained and qualified or they are not. The situation currently endorsed by CASA is akin to a pilot qualified to command a Cessna 172 being allowed to be in command of a Boeing 747 while the pilot of the 747 has a short break. This situation is beyond what is allowed under the Civil Aviation Regulations and could only undermine the confidence of the travelling public if they were aware of the situation.

This and this alone is enough to show that CASA are dysfunctional in their role of safety regulator.

Duty Hours
Airservices Australia treats duty hours as an industrial issue. The only way that Australia’s Air Traffic Controllers are protected from the excessive desires of management is through the collective agreement that covers our employment conditions.

Civil Air argues that the rules defining Air Traffic Controllers duty hours must be defined in Civil Aviation Regulations and most definitely not be part of an industrial contract. Having Duty Hours defined in Civil Aviation Regulations will mean that they are scientifically robust with regard to safety and not dictated or managed by the strength of a particular industrial position. Including Duty Hours for Air Traffic Controllers in the Civil Aviation Regulations will protect the travelling public from the excesses of an employer where profit is put before safety. Legislated Duty Hours gives organisations such as Airservices Australia and other prospective air traffic service providers, a clear way of calculating the number of staff required when current and future requirements are determined.

The “Beyond the Midnight Oil” House of Representatives Report recommended that duty hours be defined and regulated by the regulator, it is not satisfactory for CASA to pay lip service to these recommendations by saying they are satisfied with a system introduced by a provider such as Airservices Australia and by such action leaving fatigue hostage to profit, operational expediency and managerial inactivity.

Service Provision
The current system of airspace promulgation is an ill defined half way system. The main problem from an Air Traffic Control perspective is that the service to be provided in some classes of airspace are ill or under defined. Air Traffic Controller and Pilots must be clearly aware of the service that is provided in a particular class of airspace.


A tight rein needs to be taken on Airservices Australia, an organisation that quickly retreats to a position of commercial “in-confidence” and accusations of industrial action when reacting to staff who attempt to refuse to operate in positions for which they are unqualified. The focus of Airservices Australia must be the continuous provision of a safe Air Traffic Control Service in Australian Airspace. This focus must come before all others including overseas business ventures. Adequate operational Staff need to be the priority and this should have precedence over managerial restructures and projects that make no real difference to service delivery.

All businesses seem to focus on profit at some point and ultimately corners are cut in this pursuit. To guard against a loss of focus on safety, there is a need for dedicated safety regulators who are willing to enforce the associated regulations and expose shortcomings.

At a time when the provider of Air Traffic Services in Australia (Airservices Australia) is cutting corners, the regulator (CASA) does not have its eye on the ball or is actively participating in the non- compliance with regulations.

As safety is the centrepiece of confidence in the aviation industry Civil Air believes that this situation needs the most urgent attention.

We would welcome the opportunity to further elaborate on these concerns by meeting with you at your convenience. In this regard, contact should be made with the Civil Air Executive Secretary, Peter McGuane on 03 9647 9199, to make those arrangements.



Yours Faithfully


Michael Haines
President

[Howard Hughes]

No Howard, your the one that doesn't get it.

Unless I am very much mistaken, aircraft require access to a "full service" line maintenance operation capable of fixing anything every 24 hours - up to and including an engine change.

Qantas had the stranglehold on this in the 70's and 80's since they were the only one operating B747. That forced every operator to fly through Sydney inbound or outbound, the exceptions of course being Air New Zealand, Singapore , Malaysia and Thai.

Sunfish, this does not explain the myriad of airlines who operate to Sydney that operate A-340, A-330, B777, MD-11, etc... I could name 10 airlines that fly to Sydney, that do not fly to Melbourne, none of which take advantage of QF's services.

The eighties are long gone mate and there is nothing stopping airlines operating direct into Melbourne, other than perhaps the economy of scale! I am sure Sydney ATC would be happy to off load some of their flights to Melbourne, the terminal too isn't coping with the number of aircraft each day, with some inbound aircraft waiting for up to half an hour for bays to be vacated!

Unfortunately you can bleat on all you like, the fact is more people wish to make their initial port of call Sydney, rather than Melbourne.:rolleyes:

Cheers, HH.

[maui]

Howard H.

Count me out. I have travelled through Sydney at least once inbound, once outbound each month for the last 12 years, (as SLF and as crew). Because I couldn't do it any other way.

Now, thank the lord, I have a choice. And that choice is Melbourne.

Now I can walk between terminals instead of sucumbing to the extortionate $13.20 (that is correct)to travel less than a kilometer on a dirty overcrowded suburban train. Now I can retrieve my bags in 15 minutes instead of a customary 30 odd. Now I can get through inbound immigration in less than 10 minutes instead of the up to 1 hour. Now when I check my bag into a domestic connection I do not get told, you came in on a non aligned carrier, that will be $15 thank-you. Now I can travel direct to destination without being slowed up from abeam TSV for the rest of the flight. Now I do not have to guess how many times we will go around the holding pattern before SYD ATC deigns to allow us in.

Now I have a life untainted by the blight of Sydney.

Maui

[Blockla]

Unfortunately you can bleat on all you like, the fact is more people wish to make their initial port of call Sydney, rather than Melbourne.If you build it they will come... I often travel via Sydney on international legs, not by desire but by having limited effective choice (often cost related)to do anything else; I'm sure there are lots out there who feel the same; The majority may wish to choose Sydney as a tourist/business first point of offload, but there is a significant minority that at times have no choice; even when they want to avoid it.

I'm sure the "yield managers" out there will be examining all the options when they eventually increase coverage with lower capacity hulls; assuming the 787s etc will repalce some of the 747 legs etc.

[HotDog]

Rudy Valentino reported to have loved in excess of 2,000 women.

Rock Hudson allegedly kissed over 5,000 women & 1,000 men.

John Holmes said to have had sex with 10,000 women, about 5,000 men & over 2,000 animals.

Kevin Rudd about to screw 20 million Australian men, women and children.:yuk:

[Track Coastal]

I'll see your $30M and raise you another $250M....
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22784749-5013964,00.html?from=mostpop

[Track Coastal]

It is the $130M+ in my taxes for workchoices thats offensive thats why post union ads - so many failed the fairnest test. I can't wait for your posts when you ever leave the closed shop and realise that its a battle outside the 'Front Gate' if employers wish to get unscrupulous.

PS Do they still have peacocks meandering around the Richmond Officer's mess? Hip hip old bean. [PMC] "to the queen", [all] "the queen".

I suggest you read Maxter's post here (he employs 250 people).
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3743938&postcount=29


Work Choices ads:
http://candobetter.org/node/152

There's a new sherriff in town, get over it.

[Jet_A_Knight]

Life on civvy street is going to be a real eye opener for you PAF.

[SIUYA]

Here's some quotes to think about from Sen Faulkner's speech that's referred to by Track Coastal................

The Howard government's shameless exploitation of taxpayer funds and resources in a desperate attempt to cling on to office... :ugh:

...one more example of shameless rorting by the Howard government...:ugh:

...one more aspect of a taxpayer-funded reelection advertising splurge that, between the last election and the upcoming election, will come to between $800 million and $1 billion on advertising alone.:mad:

Unsurprisingly, Mr Howard will not reveal just how much he will reach into the wallets and pockets and purses of taxpayers - of ordinary working Australians - to fund his re-election epic campaign.:mad:

...after 11 years in office, I think Mr Howard actually believes that taxpayers' money is his own.:mad::mad:

It has been 11 long years of arrogance and incompetence from the Howard government, and I say again that it is time - it is long past time - that it is brought to an end.:ok:

It's a pity that a noisy minority can't/won't accept that that last Saturday week the majority of Australians clearly demonstrated that they agreed with Senator Faulkner's last observation.................and DID bring the Howard governement to an end.:}

[mmciau]

30 November 2007

The Hon. A Albanese
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600


Dear Anthony,

I am the President of Civil Air, the Association that represents the professional and industrial interests of Australia’s Air Traffic Controllers.

There is always a 'danger" of getting "short-shift" if you do not give due respect to a Minister.

The Salutation should be "Dear Minister" - not "Dear Anthony" unless you are on very close personal terms with the Minister!

Mike McInerney

[OZBUSDRIVER]

SIUYA says-
It's a pity that a noisy minority can't/won't accept that that last Saturday week the majority of Australians clearly demonstrated that they agreed with Senator Faulkner's last observation.................and DID bring the Howard governement to an end.

Some clear demonstration. Two party preferred, 119058 so far changed their preference out of some 13000000 registered voters in 150 electorates Australia wide. Zero in on those marginal seats that changed and still doubtful and only 4133 people changed their preference in 14 electorates of some 1.2 million voters and you can clearly see our democracy at work.

Every election is the same. The whole country is held to ransom by a very, very small minority who do not have a clue who or what is standing in their seat. No matter who gets in, there is never a clear mandate.

[SM4 Pirate]

The Salutation should be "Dear Minister" - not "Dear Anthony" unless you are on very close personal terms with the Minister!He only became the minister today; not when the letter was written.

[Like This - Do That]

This thread too has degenerated into a party-political slanging match .... oh dear. Still, whilst it's still 'kiddies in the sandbox', I'll have my say too.

... your auto-tory function button ....

I'm a Tory; I'm conservative. I am NOT, however, a right-wing wrecking ball ideologue. What really gets my goat (whoever thought up that saying?) is us decent folks being lumped in with the likes of Abbott, Howard, Minchin et al.

I'm glad to see the end of the Howard government, despite the distaste I have for the ALP's deep seam of 1890s-style class hatred. I'm not convinced that an ALP government will be an improvement, in toto, but at least the Howard government and its mendacity has gone.

BTW Direct I'm not having a dig at you .... just venting :ok:

[duknweev]

this is outrageously off topic, but what the hell, here's my 0c (2c rounded down) before it gets locked.
OZBUSDRIVER you're spot on - but you can't assume the swingers are the uneducated, they're probably simply just unprincipled. And for all we know, there could be 30% swingers but only the 5 or 6 per cent ever gets noticed in the end result. So what comprises the electorate? Here's my guess:
* 35% liberal bolt-ons
* 35% labor bolt-ons
* 8% green/dems bolt-ons
* 8% right wing bold-ons (national/family first/one nation)
* 14% VARIABLE which includes independents, minor parties, swingers, informal votes

I've worked under an award, where I was fortunate for the minimum salary that had been set - there was no way I was in a position as an unskilled worker to "negotiate". As a casual, my employment wasn't secure.

I've worked under a common law contract, where I was skilled enough to differentiate my ability to negotiate my own salary ... but had a very basic set of terms and conditions aside from the base $$.

I currently work under a pre-workchoices certified agreement, because I am unable to differentiate my abilities to negoiate my own salary and terms & conditions of employment. A collective agreement is my only option.

Let's set one thing clear about the unfair dismissal legislation: this has an almost imperceptible impact on unemployment, and has a huge negative impact on employee morale and productivity. A business is not going to employ somebody just because they know they can sack this person if they are no longer needed or don't work out! A business will employ somebody if they need additional labour. If they think they may not require that person in the near future, then that person should be employed under a short-term contract OR as a casual employee. If they are worried that the person may not work out, then they have probationary period provisions. At present any employee in a small or medium business works under the day-to-day threat of the sack at the whim of their (non-union) bosses.

back to topic
SUNFISH - the conspiracy works like this: airlines have for decades encouraged international visitors to arrive via SYD so they wouldn't carry all those heavy jackets and thermals in the overhead needed for freezing Bleak City. And the gays and non caucasions have naturally stayed well clear of the redneck home of our new PM. And the Kiwis ... well, Bondi's not anywhere else. Times are changing though - BNE will soon enough be busier than MEL! {rasberry}

[Spaz Modic]

:} Don'tya just love history - the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the rise and fall of governments of all persuasions.
Well, once again the generational change has hit its straps.
The junior jet jock Jacks and Jills who love the Layba loonies now glowing under the halo of Rudd the Dudd. Heh Heh.
Seen it all before and without a shadow of the proverbial all the hailers of change live to regret it, and some even admit to their stupidity. Yeahhh!
Well, good luck Jacks and Jills, and remember, when my mate Tony says Huh? when you ask him something like does the Airbus have wings - you've got what you wanted.
Look at that lovely loot. Gotta go ;)

[HotDog]

Looking forward to seeing "Anthony" Albanese performing on the left hand side of the chamber. I think he'll be quite lost by not being to stop question time by shouting "point of order" Mr. Speaker. What a w****r.:yuk:

[Capt.Grumpy]

PAF, when and if you ever leave your sheltered workshop that you now fly for, you are in for one rude shock in the big, bad world that is private enterprise. :E

[max1]

PAF and co. I can't understand what you lot are sooking about. With your almost genius grasp of economics and crystal ball of Australias outlook, I would be hocking everything and loading up on the futures market.
Australias going down the tubes (according to you) and for incredibly intelligent people there is a huge opportunity to bet big against the market and laugh all the way to the bank. Let us know what you are up to, I'm sure you won't influence the fund managers too much.
In a few years we can all look back in awe and say we knew them when they were the voices of reason on pprune.
Do I bet against the miners , the banks, ?????. Come on, give me a hint.At least show a set of cojones.

[HotDog]

DNS, you are correct if you assume you are the speaker. Albanese will most certainly be on YOUR right. However, win or lose, he is still a W****r.:sad:

[Binoculars]

Oh yeah?

Yeah!

Oh Yeah???

Yeah!!!

You want to come outside?

Yeah!! You want to come outside??

Yeah!! I'll come outside!!

Pathetic. Grow up the lot of you.