2022 Election
labor, after resisting an icac for years and years... have finally conceded... have made significant political capital out of it... and are now squirming and secret-ing it up...
"...Anthony Albanese has been blasted over a “big mistake” in his federal watchdog plan, with one group issuing a stern warning to the PM.
Long-awaited legislation to create a National Anti-Corruption Commission has been introduced to parliament but the government has been criticised for not making hearings public, unless in “exceptional circumstances”..."
"...“The default position is that hearings will be held in private.”..."
"...Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie said it was well past time for an anti-corruption and integrity commission.
“There’s no public trust in politicians out there, and they need to be held accountable like every other Australian,” she said..."
the lamb, dead right again, an in secret icac will do nothing to restore trust at all...
"...Dr Haines said the work was not done yet.
“We’ll be doing out best to make sure that this anti-corruption commission is the very, very best it can be,” she said.
“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We plan to get it right.”"
once in a generation alright... because a whole generation of politicians have lied borrowed and stolen from the public, because the icac is a whole generation late...
let's hope the independents can pull labor into line, ...because it sure seeming labor only want to get it 'right' for themselves...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news.com.au/national/politics/big-mista...
Craig wrote:Andy-mac, that interview is an absolute shambles. What a joke.
Shambles is an appropriate word!
sypkan wrote:labor, after resisting an icac for years and years... have finally conceded... have made significant political capital out of it... and are now squirming and secret-ing it up...
"...Anthony Albanese has been blasted over a “big mistake” in his federal watchdog plan, with one group issuing a stern warning to the PM.
Long-awaited legislation to create a National Anti-Corruption Commission has been introduced to parliament but the government has been criticised for not making hearings public, unless in “exceptional circumstances”..."
"...“The default position is that hearings will be held in private.”..."
"...Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie said it was well past time for an anti-corruption and integrity commission.
“There’s no public trust in politicians out there, and they need to be held accountable like every other Australian,” she said..."
the lamb, dead right again, an in secret icac will do nothing to restore trust at all...
"...Dr Haines said the work was not done yet.
“We’ll be doing out best to make sure that this anti-corruption commission is the very, very best it can be,” she said.
“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We plan to get it right.”"
once in a generation alright... because a whole generation of politicians have lied borrowed and stolen from the public, because the icac is a whole generation late...
let's hope the independents can pull labor into line, ...because it sure seeming labor only want to get it 'right' for themselves...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news.com.au/national/politics/big-mista...
If Labor do not set up a proper ICAC, many will be very pissed off, myself included. Election losing decision if they don't get it right, even if that means some in the party get done. If they reach agreement with LNP, ya know it is a hoax....
Not sure how you aren’t 100% certain the whole “ALP are the good guys” is a stitch-up hoax by now anyway?
Between the mass immigration, the tax cuts, the environmental destruction, the aiding the gas cartel etc etc…..how could you possibly still have an inkling of faith ? They hate you. You’re a cow to be milked until it’s dry and then sent to the butchers.
The ALP: “Triggered” when someone says something unpleasant but all cool and good with the plan to run Australians into the dirt in very real terms such as destruction of the environment , living standards and hope for the future. Nice one.
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:Not sure how you aren’t 100% certain the whole “ALP are the good guys” is a stitch-up hoax by now anyway?
Between the mass immigration, the tax cuts, the environmental destruction, the aiding the gas cartel etc etc…..how could you possibly still have an inkling of faith ? They hate you. You’re a cow to be milked until it’s dry and then sent to the butchers.
The ALP: “Triggered” when someone says something unpleasant but all cool and good with the plan to run Australians into the dirt in very real terms such as destruction of the environment , living standards and hope for the future. Nice one.
What do you suggest? Serious question.
Can point out negatives easily enough, but not much in offering solutions. ALP flawed, of course, but a lot better than LNP for ordinary Australians.
Bit hyperbolic to be say they hate you. Most are just normal people doing their best as they see it, and that's both sides of politics, of course there are exceptions to this as there are in any job/ vocation.
"Legislation to create a National Anti-Corruption Commission has been introduced to parliament, with some crossbenchers already flagging they will push for changes to provide greater scrutiny."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-28/long-awaited-labor-icac-legislati...
Well there's one potential solution - vote in more independents for a bigger and more powerful crossbench.
"Well there's one potential solution - vote in more independents for a bigger and more powerful crossbench."
yep, but if labor and liberal agree... they won't need the crossbench... and
"if they reach agreement with LNP, ya know it is a hoax...."
the machine will protect its own
I see the usual naysayers, doomsayers, conspiracy theorists and devotees of self flagellation are again out salivating with excitement about how the Labor government has sold out the country all in 4 months.
so you think an icac in private is ok guysmiley?
is, ...fair enough?
geez, the independents don't think so...
only labor and their stooges are defending such a peversion of justice
hence...
guysmiley
andy-mac wrote:DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:Not sure how you aren’t 100% certain the whole “ALP are the good guys” is a stitch-up hoax by now anyway?
Between the mass immigration, the tax cuts, the environmental destruction, the aiding the gas cartel etc etc…..how could you possibly still have an inkling of faith ? They hate you. You’re a cow to be milked until it’s dry and then sent to the butchers.
The ALP: “Triggered” when someone says something unpleasant but all cool and good with the plan to run Australians into the dirt in very real terms such as destruction of the environment , living standards and hope for the future. Nice one.
What do you suggest? Serious question.
Can point out negatives easily enough, but not much in offering solutions. ALP flawed, of course, but a lot better than LNP for ordinary Australians.
Bit hyperbolic to be say they hate you. Most are just normal people doing their best as they see it, and that's both sides of politics, of course there are exceptions to this as there are in any job/ vocation.
Same thing I suggested before the election: Do anything possible to keep either of the major parties out of power. They actively work against the Australian population and need to be consigned to the scrap heap of history.
sypkan wrote:so you think an icac in private is ok guysmiley?
is, ...fair enough?
geez, the independents don't think so...
only labor and their stooges are defending such a peversion of justice
hence...
guysmiley
Like most (all?) things you make "pronouncements from high" on Sippy your simplistic position rarely (ever?) matches the exceedingly complex nature of the issue at hand.
There would be good and valid legal reasons to have/not have public ICAC hearings (note its a hearing not a court of law) BUT what I'm looking for is sensible public policy, based on expert advice, that strikes the right balance.
At this moment we are yet to hear all the pros, cons, what ifs, what fors and what abouts from the legal experts so I'm reserving judgement but carry on Sippy ...
GuySmiley wrote:I see the usual naysayers, doomsayers, conspiracy theorists and devotees of self flagellation are again out salivating with excitement about how the Labor government has sold out the country all in 4 months.
Everything they’ve done, every action they’ve taken confirms this to be true. Continue to deny it if you want but it just makes you come across as a bit thick.
Into a looming depression theyre mass importing foreign wage slaves to push down wages and make for less secure employment , make housing even more unaffordable and unavailable and to push up emissions and utterly fuck the environment.
On top of all this they’re fellating the gas and coal cartels into the final ruination of our manufacturing sector, pushing utility costs through the roof and in doing so adding several inflation points despite our country owning the cheapest and most extensive energy sources on Earth….all whilst funneling trillions of dollars into the hands of our strategic enemy.
Then there’s the backpedaling towards a useless corruption commission.
But sure bloke…it’s all conspiracy theory and self flagellation when someone points these facts out.
'blah blah blah ... conspiracy theorists ... blah blah blah ... simplistic ... blah blah blah ... exceedingly complex ... blah blah blah ... good and valid reasons to hide the corruption ... blah blah blah ... sensible ... blah blah blah ... expert advice ... blah blah blah ... stikes the right balance ... blah blah blah ...'
could you not possibly write a more condescending, non commital, look after your mates, preservation of your measely powers, corpro speak, cliche, politician style non answer?
go on... give it a go... guardianista tosser...
you carry on
stooging
Everything?
Really?
GuySmiley wrote:Everything?
Really?
Everything that matters. Whatve they done that’s worth taking the time to type it?
I’m all for public hearings but they are just hearings not a court of law. If in a hearing , it is recommended that person x be prosecuted in a court of law because of what was uncovered , would it be difficult to select a jury that hasn’t been prejudiced by the initial public hearing ? I’m no legal eagle and do understand that maybe a jury won’t be used . I thought only cases that weren’t in the publics interest would be private, is this correct ?
Now will you cut that out Supafreak, nuance in a discussion here is a wasted exercise
Now will you cut that out Supafreak, nuance in a discussion here is a wasted exercise
GuySmiley wrote:Now will you cut that out Supafreak, nuance in a discussion here is a wasted exercise
You had a chance to engage in nuanced discussion and you bleated about how the opinions of others were conspiracy theory flagellation . Did you add anything nuanced or otherwise …no. Do you ever add anything beyond nondescript rubbishing of the opinions of others…no.
You were expressly asked what action ALP has taken that contradicts the idea that they are a bunch of safe-space corporate enablers and you ignored it to concentrate on your usual passive aggressive dribble.
Yawn
Regardless if all hearings are public or not the positives are that it’s an independent body , government doesn’t get to choose who and what is investigated and everyone is on notice, not just the politicians. Leppington triangle deals might be thought twice about . Surely all findings from hearings will be published.
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:GuySmiley wrote:Everything?
Really?Everything that matters. Whatve they done that’s worth taking the time to type it?
I reckon getting rid of the indue card is worth taking the time to type it .
https://m.
Am in Bali and surfed out as much as you can be... Few binnies feeling good. But need to add this, ICAC must be transparent and open, otherwise Labor will lose higher ethical ground. If they come across as being tricky with this they will be toast next election......
Think I’ll save my judgement until its up and running. See who and what they go after, the public wants blood .
Supafreak wrote:Think I’ll save my judgement until its up and running. See who and what they go after, the public wants blood .
Agree and same with stage 3 tax cuts ...
I’m not convinced that public wants blood. Yeah, there is dissatisfaction with certain things but there’s a lot of heavy, loaded language in these last dozen or so posts. Wanting blood is pretty heavy, I’m not seeing this in day to day life at all.
"I’m not seeing this in day to day life at all"
Jeez, you should get out more.
Maybe. I do live a pretty average, boring life. Three kids, sports, local public school…I don’t drink alcohol so no drinking in pubs with mates etc. I mainly interact with people through work, uni connections, kids birthday and sports, family gatherings, neighbours chats…I don’t know, everyone seems to be flat out busy and not have the time to think about things too much. Yeah, there are things pissing people off but wanting blood? That’s a pretty big call, I’m not seeing it but I could be wrong I guess.
Supafreak wrote:DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:GuySmiley wrote:Everything?
Really?Everything that matters. Whatve they done that’s worth taking the time to type it?
I reckon getting rid of the indue card is worth taking the time to type it .
Yeah If you are a paranoid nutter that believes everything they read on social media and think's pensioners are going to be forced onto income management.
But yeah seeing you posted no stop for two years about how Ivermectin was some Covid miracle drug with no evidence to support it, I'm not surprised.
flollo wrote:Maybe. I do live a pretty average, boring life. Three kids, sports, local public school…I don’t drink alcohol so no drinking in pubs with mates etc. I mainly interact with people through work, uni connections, kids birthday and sports, family gatherings, neighbours chats…I don’t know, everyone seems to be flat out busy and not have the time to think about things too much. Yeah, there are things pissing people off but wanting blood? That’s a pretty big call, I’m not seeing it but I could be wrong I guess.
If there is such thing as normal you are it (although most would enjoy an odd beer or wine), but you would be in the majority.
It's a very small minority that have views of "wanting blood" for anyone no matter what side of politics you are on.
Most people right now are thinking more about things like rising living cost, price of petrol, interest rates etc
indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:GuySmiley wrote:Everything?
Really?Everything that matters. Whatve they done that’s worth taking the time to type it?
I reckon getting rid of the indue card is worth taking the time to type it .
Yeah If you are a paranoid nutter that believes everything they read on social media and think's pensioners are going to be forced onto income management.
But yeah seeing you posted no stop for two years about how Ivermectin was some Covid miracle drug with no evidence to support it, I'm not surprised.
If you care to look back through the thread indo you will find you actually supported some of the views about ivermectin that were put up , yes you did it’s all there have a look you hypocrite. And for the record you sad little man I never said it was a miracle cure for covid and neither did any of the doctors/professors supporting it . I believed in the doctors/professors that actually treated patients . Borody and Clancy are no lightweights in the medical field. Once again you bring up ivermectin on a different thread trying to discredit me , knock yourself out ya pathetic weasel. A bloke that tells everyone that LNP are the better economic managers and that howard and morriscum are the two best PMs Australian has ever had has no credibility .
indo-dreaming wrote:flollo wrote:Maybe. I do live a pretty average, boring life. Three kids, sports, local public school…I don’t drink alcohol so no drinking in pubs with mates etc. I mainly interact with people through work, uni connections, kids birthday and sports, family gatherings, neighbours chats…I don’t know, everyone seems to be flat out busy and not have the time to think about things too much. Yeah, there are things pissing people off but wanting blood? That’s a pretty big call, I’m not seeing it but I could be wrong I guess.
If there is such thing as normal you are it (although most would enjoy an odd beer or wine), but you would be in the majority.
It's a very small minority that have views of "wanting blood" for anyone no matter what side of politics you are on.
Most people right now are thinking more about things like rising living cost, price of petrol, interest rates etc
Indo the statistician once again explaining how the majority of Australians think .
indo-dreaming wrote:flollo wrote:Maybe. I do live a pretty average, boring life. Three kids, sports, local public school…I don’t drink alcohol so no drinking in pubs with mates etc. I mainly interact with people through work, uni connections, kids birthday and sports, family gatherings, neighbours chats…I don’t know, everyone seems to be flat out busy and not have the time to think about things too much. Yeah, there are things pissing people off but wanting blood? That’s a pretty big call, I’m not seeing it but I could be wrong I guess.
If there is such thing as normal you are it (although most would enjoy an odd beer or wine), but you would be in the majority.
It's a very small minority that have views of "wanting blood" for anyone no matter what side of politics you are on.
Most people right now are thinking more about things like rising living cost, price of petrol, interest rates etc
Yep, the LNP really left a mess to be cleaned up! Labor's fault they haven't fixed 10 years of neglect, corruption, and incompetence in less than 6 months.
If ya not angry, then you haven't been paying attention. They LNP fingered Australia and Australians, but hopefully karma in the form of an ICAC is coming to sort them out ...
If ya still pushing line of LNP being better economic managers, then sorry to say you are ignorant of the historic data and living in a delusion....
https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2022/sep/29/britains-tr...
Trickle down mythology.....
@andy-mac I don't know if your above commentary about LNP/Labor was directed towards me or not. In any case, yes these are the issues Labor is committed to improving on and I wish them the best of luck. And by no means would I expect them to address all of these in a few months. It would be a good achievement if they make progress during this term. I'm not pushing any lines, that would be foolish. But I stand by my observation that I'm not seeing people wanting blood in real day-to-day life (outside of the online world).
Flollo, I've spoken to a lot of people over the past few years (thousands??) and the degree of anger against Australian politics and the LNP specifically is huge.
People want change, they want honesty, they want accountability and they want to see these crooks face the music.
flollo wrote:@andy-mac I don't know if your above commentary about LNP/Labor was directed towards me or not. In any case, yes these are the issues Labor is committed to improving on and I wish them the best of luck. And by no means would I expect them to address all of these in a few months. It would be a good achievement if they make progress during this term. I'm not pushing any lines, that would be foolish. But I stand by my observation that I'm not seeing people wanting blood in real day-to-day life (outside of the online world).
Not necessarily aimed at you flollo and was not having a go. I just think with all the corruption and mismanagement displayed by previous government with more and more coming to light, that you really would have to be totally oblivious to situation not to be upset. The money they have wasted is our taxpayers money and the previous govt treated it as their own for their own benefit, not the national interest.
Another example as I write...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/29/australian-taxpay...
flollo wrote:@andy-mac I don't know if your above commentary about LNP/Labor was directed towards me or not. In any case, yes these are the issues Labor is committed to improving on and I wish them the best of luck. And by no means would I expect them to address all of these in a few months. It would be a good achievement if they make progress during this term. I'm not pushing any lines, that would be foolish. But I stand by my observation that I'm not seeing people wanting blood in real day-to-day life (outside of the online world).
@flollo , what do you think I meant when I stated “ the public want blood “ ? It was not supposed to be taken literally . Surveys were taken before the election on what issues people were concerned about and corruption rated highly. Some like indo d don’t really see corruption as a problem and treat it as though it’s just part of politics and everyone does it so it’s ok. I hear you when you say you don’t experience people talking about it in your world. Social media platforms like Twitter are a place for people to vent their frustrations and anger at the corruption that has been obviously happening . Australian has slipped from 7th to 18th under the previous government In corruption ratings . https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/corruption-rank By me saying “ the public want blood “ I meant that the public wanted corruption addressed and dealt with with the harshess penalties applied. It may not be the number one issue at the moment but it certainly is an issue of importance to some of us .
Ok, let me elaborate a bit more. For example, the crew that walked around in anti-wax/mandates (whatever they are) protest with Dan Andrews gallows wanted blood. They were very explicit about it. I don't even remember their requirements (did they even have any?) but I do remember the gallows. So they wanted Dan Andrews' blood and they marched the streets to get it. Similarly, families were broken on this wax/freedom issue and I noticed deep, extreme polarisation in my immediate surroundings. People felt threatened and they wanted someone's head chopped off to feel safe. These people are in minority and I definitely don't share their views but we need to somehow live together. I definitely noticed their frustration, anger, and desire for blood. And it's such a difficult problem to resolve.
So, in this scenario, I would say that people (a minority) wanted blood. 'Wanting blood' can lead to extreme polarisation (as evidenced) as it divides people into those who want blood and those who don't. So, it needs to be used sparingly and as a last resort.
On the other side, wanting things done to a higher standard is good and it's not the same as wanting blood. That's one of the strengths of this society - we always want things to progress to higher standards. And yes, on most of the issues being discussed we want them to be better - ICAC, climate change, health etc.. And when I talk to people they express their desires for better outcomes. That is absolutely the case. But do they want someone's head chopped off to get there? Absolutely not. Are there families broken up on these issues? No.
So I wouldn't be using terms like wanting blood unless that is absolutely the case. It can create problems that are worse than the original ones intended to be fixed. People can disagree with me on this but this is where I currently stand based on the observations of my immediate surroundings.
@flollo , thanks for responding . Agreed it was a poor choice of words on my behalf , really didn’t expect others to take it like you did but there ya go . Maybe I should have just said “throw the bloody book at them “
flollo wrote:Ok, let me elaborate a bit more. For example, the crew that walked around in anti-wax/mandates (whatever they are) protest with Dan Andrews gallows wanted blood. They were very explicit about it. I don't even remember their requirements (did they even have any?) but I do remember the gallows. So they wanted Dan Andrews' blood and they marched the streets to get it. Similarly, families were broken on this wax/freedom issue and I noticed deep, extreme polarisation in my immediate surroundings. People felt threatened and they wanted someone's head chopped off to feel safe. These people are in minority and I definitely don't share their views but we need to somehow live together. I definitely noticed their frustration, anger, and desire for blood. And it's such a difficult problem to resolve.
So, in this scenario, I would say that people (a minority) wanted blood. 'Wanting blood' can lead to extreme polarisation (as evidenced) as it divides people into those who want blood and those who don't. So, it needs to be used sparingly and as a last resort.
On the other side, wanting things done to a higher standard is good and it's not the same as wanting blood. That's one of the strengths of this society - we always want things to progress to higher standards. And yes, on most of the issues being discussed we want them to be better - ICAC, climate change, health etc.. And when I talk to people they express their desires for better outcomes. That is absolutely the case. But do they want someone's head chopped off to get there? Absolutely not. Are there families broken up on these issues? No.
So I wouldn't be using terms like wanting blood unless that is absolutely the case. It can create problems that are worse than the original ones intended to be fixed. People can disagree with me on this but this is where I currently stand based on the observations of my immediate surroundings.
If a politician on either side of politics has been shown to break law with ICAC, then they should be receiving same consequence, jail if appropriate as any other citizen....
I think you’ll find that gallows was a theatrical device.
OK Guy Smiley and Co…..here’s your indisputable proof that the ALP are shits with not a single concern for anything beyond accomodating corporations. The Australian public matters not beyond how far they can be reamed before they expire.
If you don’t understand what this means then please ask. This is the biggest betrayal by an Australian government of all time.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2022/09/albos-cowards-lock-in-immense-e...
Hard to exaggerate the scale and scope of negative effect this will have on Australia.
@DSDS , so is the article basically saying gas will be more than 3 times the current price ? Sounds like political suicide.
andy-mac wrote:flollo wrote:Ok, let me elaborate a bit more. For example, the crew that walked around in anti-wax/mandates (whatever they are) protest with Dan Andrews gallows wanted blood. They were very explicit about it. I don't even remember their requirements (did they even have any?) but I do remember the gallows. So they wanted Dan Andrews' blood and they marched the streets to get it. Similarly, families were broken on this wax/freedom issue and I noticed deep, extreme polarisation in my immediate surroundings. People felt threatened and they wanted someone's head chopped off to feel safe. These people are in minority and I definitely don't share their views but we need to somehow live together. I definitely noticed their frustration, anger, and desire for blood. And it's such a difficult problem to resolve.
So, in this scenario, I would say that people (a minority) wanted blood. 'Wanting blood' can lead to extreme polarisation (as evidenced) as it divides people into those who want blood and those who don't. So, it needs to be used sparingly and as a last resort.
On the other side, wanting things done to a higher standard is good and it's not the same as wanting blood. That's one of the strengths of this society - we always want things to progress to higher standards. And yes, on most of the issues being discussed we want them to be better - ICAC, climate change, health etc.. And when I talk to people they express their desires for better outcomes. That is absolutely the case. But do they want someone's head chopped off to get there? Absolutely not. Are there families broken up on these issues? No.
So I wouldn't be using terms like wanting blood unless that is absolutely the case. It can create problems that are worse than the original ones intended to be fixed. People can disagree with me on this but this is where I currently stand based on the observations of my immediate surroundings.
If a politician on either side of politics has been shown to break law with ICAC, then they should be receiving same consequence, jail if appropriate as any other citizen....
Absolutely. And I’m quite happy that Labor is following on their promise to set something up and get things moving. It doesn’t need to be perfect, it’s version 1.0 that will get enhanced in the future. It’s pretty rare for anything in life to be perfect for the first time. So yeah, good time to be alive, I’m happy rather than angry. I might be angry with what they find in the future but I’ll leave that for the future, haha.
andy-mac wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:flollo wrote:Maybe. I do live a pretty average, boring life. Three kids, sports, local public school…I don’t drink alcohol so no drinking in pubs with mates etc. I mainly interact with people through work, uni connections, kids birthday and sports, family gatherings, neighbours chats…I don’t know, everyone seems to be flat out busy and not have the time to think about things too much. Yeah, there are things pissing people off but wanting blood? That’s a pretty big call, I’m not seeing it but I could be wrong I guess.
If there is such thing as normal you are it (although most would enjoy an odd beer or wine), but you would be in the majority.
It's a very small minority that have views of "wanting blood" for anyone no matter what side of politics you are on.
Most people right now are thinking more about things like rising living cost, price of petrol, interest rates etc
Yep, the LNP really left a mess to be cleaned up! Labor's fault they haven't fixed 10 years of neglect, corruption, and incompetence in less than 6 months.
If ya not angry, then you haven't been paying attention. They LNP fingered Australia and Australians, but hopefully karma in the form of an ICAC is coming to sort them out ...
If ya still pushing line of LNP being better economic managers, then sorry to say you are ignorant of the historic data and living in a delusion....
Look mate we will never agree, and you will never be happy no matter what, even if you moved to some socialist utopia (utopia in your head) you are basically just a Jordie's zombie, he says one thing and you spit it out here.
The reality is in the last 30 years we have gone through one of the most prosperous periods in Australian history by any kind of measure and only just over 6 years of those 30 years have been under Labor.
Early 90s saw us go from a true recession (under Labor)with super high interest rates and super high unemployment to an amazing period of growth and opportunity.(under LNP)
Im certain you are old enough to remember what this period and recession was like for everyday Australians.
We went from a government(Labor) that was in debt to a government(LNP) that saw us go into surplus which was the first time since the early 70s and hadn't happen again and unlikely too possible ever happen again.
Then we then had the global finical crisis, border control problems(still a big current political issue in USA & Europe) and terrorism.
So how did we fair through these issues?
As much as i cant stand Krudd, credit where credit is due, while many experts say we would have come through it unscathed thanks to our strong economy and stricter lending practices he did the right think with stimulus packages it was a good safe measure, even if it did see us go back into debt.
Krudd completely fucked up on border control though which has cost us billions and been a political mess with what to do with those in offshore detention, luckily LNP did the hard work on border control and its not an issue anymore because we have a system in place, again this is unlike the USA and Europe where its still a mess and as we saw recently even saw a right wing government elected in Italy.
Terrorism, all Aust governments have done an amazing job on this issue preventing any real attacks, while USA, UK, Europe and countries in Asia like Indo and India saw real attacks and then off course NZ had a big gunman shooting that would be unlikely to happen in Aust these days because Howard changed gun laws.
Next major issue Covid, again no matter how you look at things we faired better than most of the world, low infection/death rate, health system under much pressure but didnt collapse, one of the highest vax rates in the world, we were predicated to go into a recession some saying even a depression and so called experts predicting housing prices to plummet and building industry collapses, instead we technically went into a recession for a brief period bounced back and housing and building industry boomed.
If you want to throw Climate change in there as an issue, despite being a country historically pretty much reliant on coal and natural resources that equals high emissions with a high immigration rate constantly adding more demand to energy every year.
We are doing pretty good compared to he majority of the world, emissions are falling, and per capita we lead the world for solar and fourth for wind generation and up there for storage.
We havent done good as a country in the last 30 years, we have done fucking amazing, anyone that thinks otherwise has completely unrealistic expectations and is living in la la land.
The future?
Well it hasn't looked so uncertain for a long time most of the uncertainty is fuelled by global influences and all the issues we are seeing, inflation, rising interest rates to curb inflation, energy security issues, housing and rent affordability are also being seen in not only developed countries but developing countries all around the world.
You might be confident of Labor and Albo being in power during this time of uncertainty, but sorry I'm not.
How Australia blew its future gas supplies No one went hungry at our place.
My father killed our meat, grew our vegetables and was a champion at bartering. A leg of lamb was worth a tub of crayfish to fishermen down the coast. My mother always had chooks, and there were warm eggs collected every morning. The old boy would snort at the idea of selling a paddock of sheep or cattle without first selecting a fat lamb or a fine steer for the table and the freezer. When Mum took eggs to market, there were plenty put aside for our frypan.
It doesn't bear contemplating, now they're gone, what they might have thought about a country that allowed its entire store of gas to be flogged off without first setting aside enough of the stuff to ensure the nation's power grid continued humming and that consumers could afford to turn on a light switch. They'd have been plain flummoxed to know that in the excitement of hawking off Australia's natural resources to China, the initial sale contract set a bargain price that couldn't be negotiated upwards.
But that is what Australia's governments allowed.
It's been a scandal for too many years, and no recent government can escape blame.
I was in the Canberra press gallery in 2002 when prime minister John Howard called a press conference to announce, with the widest grin he could manage, that after years of negotiation, Australia's mining interests had pulled off a $25 billion deal to supply China with liquefied natural gas. It was, crowed Howard, Australia's biggest single export deal. Ever.
"Needless to say, I am absolutely delighted. It is so good for Australia," he said. "This is the kind of outcome that will underpin the economic strength of this country." It was, he said, growing more expansive and breathless by the minute, "a gold medal performance". It wasn't, though.
By 2015, it was being called the worst deal ever done. The Chinese by then were paying about one-third the price for Australian gas that Australian consumers themselves had to pay ... and they were guaranteed to continue doing so.
The Chinese had got the deal of a lifetime because the consortium of Australia's North West Shelf operators hadn't thought to insert a clause into the contract that would raise the price of gas from what was, in 2002, a historically low level.
As world gas prices rose and rose, the price paid by China for what Howard had called "a gold medal performance" stayed at rock bottom. Australia's gas exports of 3 million tonnes a year from that single agreement were contracted to stay at basement prices until 2031.
Howard, visiting China in 2007, was pedalling as fast as his little legs would take him from the idea that his government should take responsibility for the fiasco. It wasn't for his government to interfere in pricing. No sir! "I would never encourage the idea that governments should negotiate LNG prices," he said. "At no stage was the Australian government directly involved in pricing issues in relation to the $25 billion contract."
A few months later, in the dying days of his government, Howard was back in China to witness the signing of a new, $35 billion liquid natural gas deal. The Chinese were so thrilled they made a gift of two giant pandas to Adelaide's zoo. The deals kept coming after Australia changed governments.
The Labor administrations of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard were only too pleased to keep announcing huge exports of LNG to China, Japan and South Korea. The gas price for most of these deals was linked to the price of oil. All along, not one of these governments ever thought to require exporters to set aside part of their bounty for the use of Australian consumers. The whole thing was up to the market. And the market, as always, couldn't give a stuff about who paid, so long as payments kept flowing from somewhere and no one in power was demanding anything different.
Which, with Australia's energy market currently suffering policy paralysis, is why Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been forced to arm-wrestle big gas-producing companies into agreeing this week to provide enough supply for the Australian market to avert a predicted shortfall - with consequent price hikes - over the next two years.
These are, of course, the same companies that previously expressed outrage that a government would require them to consider the needs of the nation from which they extract the gas in the first place. These are the same class of geniuses that have been praised for their "gold standard" behaviour even when they negotiated contracts that, if they'd been small-town snake-oil salesmen rather than multinational big shots, would have seen them ridden out of town on a rail.
Ah, but now they've been threatened by a government that previously abhorred market intervention, they've suddenly found extra gas from where there was none before and, glory be, they're promising to improve transparency about how they put a price on the stuff.
Yet things remain so dire that there is talk of importing gas, either the Australian stuff on sale so cheaply overseas, or supplies from one of our competitors, Qatar.
Back on the farm, our parents, who knew how to provide without running out of anything, would have been scandalised almost beyond words. https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-australia-blew-its-future-gas-supplie...
Supafreak wrote:How Australia blew its future gas supplies No one went hungry at our place.
My father killed our meat, grew our vegetables and was a champion at bartering. A leg of lamb was worth a tub of crayfish to fishermen down the coast. My mother always had chooks, and there were warm eggs collected every morning. The old boy would snort at the idea of selling a paddock of sheep or cattle without first selecting a fat lamb or a fine steer for the table and the freezer. When Mum took eggs to market, there were plenty put aside for our frypan.
It doesn't bear contemplating, now they're gone, what they might have thought about a country that allowed its entire store of gas to be flogged off without first setting aside enough of the stuff to ensure the nation's power grid continued humming and that consumers could afford to turn on a light switch. They'd have been plain flummoxed to know that in the excitement of hawking off Australia's natural resources to China, the initial sale contract set a bargain price that couldn't be negotiated upwards.
But that is what Australia's governments allowed.
It's been a scandal for too many years, and no recent government can escape blame.
I was in the Canberra press gallery in 2002 when prime minister John Howard called a press conference to announce, with the widest grin he could manage, that after years of negotiation, Australia's mining interests had pulled off a $25 billion deal to supply China with liquefied natural gas. It was, crowed Howard, Australia's biggest single export deal. Ever.
"Needless to say, I am absolutely delighted. It is so good for Australia," he said. "This is the kind of outcome that will underpin the economic strength of this country." It was, he said, growing more expansive and breathless by the minute, "a gold medal performance". It wasn't, though.
By 2015, it was being called the worst deal ever done. The Chinese by then were paying about one-third the price for Australian gas that Australian consumers themselves had to pay ... and they were guaranteed to continue doing so.
The Chinese had got the deal of a lifetime because the consortium of Australia's North West Shelf operators hadn't thought to insert a clause into the contract that would raise the price of gas from what was, in 2002, a historically low level.
As world gas prices rose and rose, the price paid by China for what Howard had called "a gold medal performance" stayed at rock bottom. Australia's gas exports of 3 million tonnes a year from that single agreement were contracted to stay at basement prices until 2031.
Howard, visiting China in 2007, was pedalling as fast as his little legs would take him from the idea that his government should take responsibility for the fiasco. It wasn't for his government to interfere in pricing. No sir! "I would never encourage the idea that governments should negotiate LNG prices," he said. "At no stage was the Australian government directly involved in pricing issues in relation to the $25 billion contract."
A few months later, in the dying days of his government, Howard was back in China to witness the signing of a new, $35 billion liquid natural gas deal. The Chinese were so thrilled they made a gift of two giant pandas to Adelaide's zoo. The deals kept coming after Australia changed governments.
The Labor administrations of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard were only too pleased to keep announcing huge exports of LNG to China, Japan and South Korea. The gas price for most of these deals was linked to the price of oil. All along, not one of these governments ever thought to require exporters to set aside part of their bounty for the use of Australian consumers. The whole thing was up to the market. And the market, as always, couldn't give a stuff about who paid, so long as payments kept flowing from somewhere and no one in power was demanding anything different.
Which, with Australia's energy market currently suffering policy paralysis, is why Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been forced to arm-wrestle big gas-producing companies into agreeing this week to provide enough supply for the Australian market to avert a predicted shortfall - with consequent price hikes - over the next two years.
These are, of course, the same companies that previously expressed outrage that a government would require them to consider the needs of the nation from which they extract the gas in the first place. These are the same class of geniuses that have been praised for their "gold standard" behaviour even when they negotiated contracts that, if they'd been small-town snake-oil salesmen rather than multinational big shots, would have seen them ridden out of town on a rail.
Ah, but now they've been threatened by a government that previously abhorred market intervention, they've suddenly found extra gas from where there was none before and, glory be, they're promising to improve transparency about how they put a price on the stuff.
Yet things remain so dire that there is talk of importing gas, either the Australian stuff on sale so cheaply overseas, or supplies from one of our competitors, Qatar.
Back on the farm, our parents, who knew how to provide without running out of anything, would have been scandalised almost beyond words. https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-australia-blew-its-future-gas-supplie...
Fark. :(
Maybe time to nationalise industry or change terms of contracts. Sovereign risk after submarine fiasco might not be such a factor. It's Australia's gas.
¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯
.