Last week’s Essential Research survey, which I neglected to cover outside of comments (Labor were down from 58-42 to 57-43), will be the last until January 18. If last year is any guide, Newspoll should return at the same time. In other developments:
• If the somewhat partisan Townsville Bulletin commentator Malcolm Weatherup is to be believed, aspirants for Labor preselection in Townsville-based Herbert are 2007 candidate George Colbran, former mayor and Mundingburra by-election veteran Tony Mooney (who apparently “will have to overcome the kryptonite of lingering local anger about his running non-Labor candidates on his Titanic ticket in the mayoral elections”), Townsville city councillor Jenny Hill and a James Cook University psychology student. The Prime Minister has apparently promised the decision will be made by the local party, although Weatherup claims he would have preferred to have installed Mooney. Peter Lindsay retained the seat in 2007 by 343 votes.
• Staying in Queensland, Toni McRae of the Fraser Coast Chronicle reports Fraser Coast councillor Belinda McNeven has indicated she may run for preselection in Bundaberg-based Hinkler, where Labor might have been a show in 2007 if their candidate hadn’t been such a dill.
• Emily Sobey of the Ballarat Courier reports the Liberals have nominated Mark Banwell, who “works as an adviser to a financial publication in Melbourne”, as their candidate for the federal seat of Ballarat. Ballarat was Labor’s only gain at the 2001 election and has since been retained by Catherine King.
• The aforementioned Emily Sobey article also informs us the Greens have again preselected architect Marcus Ward, who also ran in 2006, as their lead candidate for the upper house region of Western Victoria at the November state election.
• Imre Salusinszky of The Australian reports Barry O’Farrell has sought to protect Right warlord David Clarke by bringing his state upper house preselection forward from March to February, suggesting he may not be as invulnerable than his factional might makes him appear.
Another thing that probably deserves a link in the main post: Ben Raue over at the Tally Room has been going great guns lately on his seat profiles (all 149 of them, eventually). He’s writing them by rough order of marginality, so the last few he’s done have been Cowan, Cowper, Stirling, Bennelong and Deakin. Worth a read every couple of days.
Dear Bilbo, what have you been smokin’ for getting involved in the flame war like that.
You cant have it both ways. If you cannot stay neutral then you cannot SNIPing people. You should let us see what was posted in the context of the flame war. If you want to reatin your SNIPing power, then stay out of it.
Anyway, your bloody nose was a punishment from God for saying this:
[Dear God, you’re a halfwit.]
😉 😛 😎
Other than day, a very good day to you, Sir. It’s bloddy miserable day in Sydney.
reatin = retain, bloddy weather, stiff fingers
William @ # 2927 of pervious thread
The Federal Government is not in the business of building medical institutions/facilities.
Although its head is apparently in the business of making sod-turning ceremonies at said facilities into photo opportunities for himself.
I am afraid that I must comment on your post from the previous thread which forms part of the quote above (the second paragraph).
Most leaders of the community find themselves lending support to worthwhile community activities without committing their Government to detailed and ongoing Government support.
Over Christmas there were two cases of this. Firstly, the Premier of NSW was seen working on “St Vinnies” (or was it the Smith Family) food preparation for Christmas lunch for those less well of. She asked the community to support such events and like endeavours.
The PM was in Melbourne at the cricket with the Minister of Sport launching a programme to encourage people to ease up on the their drinking. I think the catch cry was something about “declaring” when you have had enough or something like that.
There are numerous programmes/events that theses people lend their name to as a way of helping these worthwhile events and in so doing they raise a great deal of publicity for them.
In respect of the “sod turning” event to which you refer how much publicity do you think it would have received if say I had done it? It would not have made any paper radio or TV news in the country. However, if say the Queen or Obama had done it it would have filled the pages of every paper/Mag. and publication in the country for months let alone the radio and TV coverage.
Now I know that these are extreme examples but they illustrate the point. How often do people in leadership roles open every community event that is held? Just consider the ho/ha that would have occurred if the PM had refused the invitation to turn that sod. I think that Rudd would justifiable the subject of a great deal of criticism.
I think you “criticism” (if that is what it was) of the PM is just a trifle unfair.
Finally I would like to commend you for the last post of the previous thread.
Well done William.
Well, I still can’t see it. Apart from the cancer centre being the brainchild of Chris O’Brien and there being some contention over whether the sod was turned late, or whether sod-turning equalled “commencing construction”, it’s a pretty weak argument to be connecting a reasonably par-for-the-course NSW government bashing-type comment into an attack on a dead man.
That said, no-one – alive or dead – should be beyond criticism if that criticism is legitimate. Chris O’Brien was clearly a good man who did great works etc., but Frank seems to have canonised him into some holy angel who is beyond even the implied very mild criticism Frank alleges.
My nominations for the annual PB awards:
Best blogger: Bushfire Bill
Most informative blogger: Aristotle
Best ALP blogger/hack: Gary Bruce
Best LP blogger/hack: Glen
Best duel: cant decide, too many fights to choose from!
Best pollie: Julia Gillard
Worst pollie: Barnaby Joyce
What do you think??
What I find so amazing about the 2 big party system is the total abandonment of any sense of principle by urgers and disciples of each of the parties. Ultimately, any criticism of the actions of one party is met with the defence by the urgers of that party that the action is justified because the other party did/does the same thing. That tit-for-tat response demonstrates the sheer arrogance of both parties, and indicates a belief the political system is owned as an oligopoly – with power alternating between each party at regular intervals.
This behaviour will not change until one, or preferably both parties, decide to break the mould and act differently. However,I despair that it will ever happen. I suspect the electorate is beyond despair.
Believe it or not, the electorate is neither interested or impressed by this juvenile behaviour. They want something better.
[What do you think??]
Can’t fault any of those superb choices (cough, cough).
Peter Young
[political system is owned as an oligopoly – with power alternating between each party at regular intervals.
This behaviour will not change until one, or preferably both parties, decide to break the mould and act differently.]
The sad case of NSW is the inevitable fag-end result of the fatal flaws in the single-member district voting system we inherited in Australia and then bastardised with our party structures.
What we see in NSW so starkly now, we also see happening Federally and in other states. The big party groups going for the same electoral segment, with the voting system ensuring one or other of then gets a member elected in virtually every electorate on 2PP basis on the preferential count. All smaller parties are squeezed out without representation.
That is why the parliamentary situation will tend to devolve to the farce it is in NSW these days.
NSW voters are stuck with two major parties, neither of which is electable on any objective criteria. In my view that is currently the case right around Australia.
The only potential answer is proportional representation.
We won’t get of our loyal big party defenders supporting that idea, especially from the ALP right, but there must be some in the smaller groups within the major parties who can see the benefits of potential coalitions of power if the big parties were to break up into their component parts under a PR system (and I believe they would). These self-interested smaller factions are the ones we need to work on. 🙂
The recent green paper on the electoral system addressed PR as an option for the lower house, but the dominant right faction in the government will ensure it goes nowhere.
Andrew, you miss out a very important category:
Most wRONg Blogger: Diogenes :kiss:
Over a hectic festive season I thought from snippets of radio news I noticed a recurring key number in the emerging CPRS scene back in Aus since Copenhagen.
1. The government’s defeated bill had a target range of 5-25%.
2. Bob Brown said the other day that the Greens will negotiate within their target range of 25-40%.
3. Professor Garnaut says our target must now be at least 25%.
What is the common number in all of the above? 25%. Surely this must mean negotiations between the Greens (& Mr X) and the government have some potential, when there is already overlap, and the independent umpire is right there at that figure?
Jaundiced View – #9
I have no problem with PR. If it improves standards then it has to be a winner. However, as in all things, those who benefit from the present system will strenuously resist change. The interests of the electorate will seemingly be placed behind their own interests.
What possible arguments are there in opposition to PR?
Peter Young @ # 7
I am surprised at you comments above and would consider them to be particularly naive.
There are a number of tactics here some of which are legitimate and others that just take advantage of people willingness to be misled.
One principle is that if you tell or lie (or an unrelated truth) often enough it because the truth unless it is rebutted.
An example of this is the Liberals “debt and deficit” line that it uses on the Government.
Now unless this is rebutted quickly and loudly an unacceptable impression is left in respect of whatever party it is applies.
Just remember that mileage that the Liberals got out of “Keating’s debt”. This was made worse for Labor by their inability to rebut this argument from the very start.
There is also the problem of deafferentation of their brand. If all parties are the same why select one side over the other.
The best example of this is the campaign against “Workchoices” in the lead up to the last election. This was a “king hit” by the Labor party against the Liberals.
A prime example of a willingness to be misled is the published opinion of those deniers of global warming who against all the relevant advice choose not to believe. An example of this is the Liberals current position on the ETS. They are arguing that there is no such thing and it clearly apparent that there are a fair number who are quite willing to accept this argument against all the expert advice. If Labor and the Greens do not rebut this argument there is a chance that that this view may become the majority view.
I think that Peter is implying that his party of choice does not engage in these tactics. Well of cause they do. A prime example of this is what I consider to be the hypocritical behaviour of Mr Brown when he found that he was short of a few readies because of a court case. He then touted around for support to get himself out of his financial bind. I have no problem with this until he then started to criticise the other political parties for doing exactly the same thing – asking and receiving financial support.
Politics is the arena of ideas. You try to push your ideas while at the same time pulling down the ideas if the other mob. To contend that it is something else and that it will be conducted differently “come the revolution” is just “pie in the sky’ rhetoric.
Jaundiced View- #11
Very sensible observation.
I suggest the reason the government is not prepared to negotiate with the Greens is purely political. To do so might be seen as giving some legitimacy to the Greens and the government is terrified of that possibility.
Hmmmm, dont be a Nigerian and spend too long in the toilet:
[There has been a security scare on board a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit – two days after an alleged attack failed on board the same flight.
The pilot of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 requested emergency help when a passenger was described as disruptive as the plane landed on Sunday.
However hours later the FBI said it was a “non-serious incident”.
It came a day after a Nigerian man was charged with attempting to destroy a plane on a flight on 25 December.
In Sunday’s incident, flight crew became concerned when the passenger- who was also described as a Nigerian – became sick and spent about an hour locked in the toilet, officials said. ]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8432050.stm
The Secuity People have too many eggs on their faces lastely:
* Two actors gate crashed Obama formal party for the Indian PM at the WH and got to shakehand with Obama
* Berlusconi face crashed by a cathedral.
* The Pope tackled crashed inside a cathedral by a woman in red, second attempts
* A Nigerian gang crashed by his fellow passengers while trying to ignite a bomb
What are these high paid security drongos are doing.
Peter Young @ # 12
The interests of the electorate will seemingly be placed behind their own interests.
This is a very socialistic if not communistic approach. Our system in all areas is based on the premise that in any race the only “horse” that we know that is really trying is self interest.
The Communities (well a better term is a centrally planned economy) tried this approach and we say how unsuccessful it was.
Peter Young
the total abandonment of any sense of principle This is such a sweeping over-the-top absolutism that the cow who jumped over the moon has probably lost his championship high-jumper status! Words may fail me, but not others with a better turn of phrase. Let me repost “The Bloke’s” observation in The Mooch o’ Life:
BTW: If you’re too young to remember, the meaning of “liverish” a century ago, can be found @ http://www.yourdictionary.com/liverish
While I’m still in a literary mood, I’d recommend the Immortal Will:
And, as it’s the Christmas Season:
Peter Young
[What possible arguments are there in opposition to PR?]
None of any force, when almost all the advanced western democracies have it, and it provides a representative parliament, instead of the rort our lower houses are.
]My nominations for the annual PB awards:
Best blogger: Bushfire Bill
Most informative blogger: Aristotle
Best ALP blogger/hack: Gary Bruce
Best LP blogger/hack: Glen
Best duel: cant decide, too many fights to choose from!
Best pollie: Julia Gillard
Worst pollie: Barnaby Joyce
What do you think??]
Andrew, you are too kind but I accept your nomination.
Ratsars – 13
Never let a chance go by (to criticise the Greens that is) – 😆
“I have no problem with this until he then started to criticise the other political parties for doing exactly the same thing – asking and receiving financial support.”
Now if my recollection is correct –
1. The Greens have been critical of campaign donations from corporations for years. Certainly they have put a lot of effort in making available to the electorate information (admittedly after the event) regarding donations through the democracy4sale website and the hard work of Dr Norman Thompson. Without that work, I am sure political donations would not be the major issue it is today.
2. It was only June 2009 that Bob Brown made a public plea for help to avoid bankruptcy (and therefore loss of his seat by disqualification under the constitution). Hard to see the connection between this and a policy on no “political” donations to fund election campaigns.
3. The only criticism Brown made of other political parties (other than that in 1) re legal costs that I am aware was his claim that Abetz, as minister had directed a misuse of taxpayer money, and that as a matter of morality Abetz should personally repay the money to the taxpayer. This was on 29 June 2009. It is a different situation to that faced by Brown. There may be other occasions of which I am unaware. No doubt you will inform me if there are.
Your statement : Politics is the arena of ideas. You try to push your ideas while at the same time pulling down the ideas if the other mob.
I have no problem with that statement at all.
However, I was referring to the tit-for-tat unprincipled fights and justifications. e.g. Party X says it is wrong that party Y takes overseas junkets at taxpayers expense. Party Y, without justifying the junkets, says Party X did the same when it was in government and list all the major junkets Party X took. Then at the next election, party X wins government and takes junkets. party Y critices. Party X then says look it party Y, when it was in government it took junkets and lists them all. And the cycle continues…………
some web articles:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/09/2593414.htm
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/brown-leaves-them-green-with-envy-20090614-c78s.html
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/offers-of-help-flood-in-for-greens-senator-20090609-c28o.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/dick-smith-chipping-in-for-bob-brown/story-0-1225731830256
http://www.examiner.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/bob-brown-risks-losing-sympathy/1536329.aspx
OzPolTragic – #17
I am pleased my posts have so stimulated your creative and literary juices – that you were prompted to make that post.
😆 🙂 😆
[In closing, I would like to thank Frank for taking my abuse in good humour (certain of his past antagonists would have been sending me death threats at this point), and to again concede that his basic argument might not have been as stupid as he made it appear.]
It’s not called the “silly season”for nothing! 🙂
I must admit Andrew I feel like an imposter accepting your nomination though given that I’m not a member of the ALP, have voted Liberal before and hold views on the unions most staunch Labor supporters would cringe at, but there you go.
[In closing, I would like to thank Frank for taking my abuse in good humour (certain of his past antagonists would have been sending me death threats at this point)]
Cmon william,
Names names, dammitt
That aircraft on christmas day could have come down if the terrorist’s detonator had worked, apparently.
It seems the perpetrator of the attempt was the product of a moderate, non-violent Islamic family background, but himself gradually took the extra steps leading to extremist violence in Yemen.
Yet again we see how dangerous even moderate religion is – it is the pervasive medium that legitimises the whole fantastical baseless construct of religious belief to more intense people (especially young men) who think they need to be ’holier than thou’ . That’s why all religious belief should be actively dismissed as ignorance perpetuated, and marginalised by political leaders at every turn, as a regressive, irrational and potentially dangerous force in society.
This is especially so when the incitement and justification for killing non-believers is there in plain sight both in the q’uran and the bible. That is what allows these fanatics to be capable of the madness of bringing down planes. Not such a huge leap when the whole structure of their lives is founded in the general madness of irrational belief surrounding them from birth.
Similar dynamic as with the religious fanatic abortion clinic killers in the US.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/terrorist-alert-the-turning-of-a-boy-nicknamed-the-pope-20091228-lgmt.html?autostart=1
[ The Federal Government is not in the business of building medical institutions/facilities.]
[Although its head is apparently in the business of making sod-turning ceremonies at said facilities into photo opportunities for himself.]
I would have to give Rudd the benefit of the doubt here! IMO his intention was to assist the foundation in its further fundraising by giving it the imprimatur of a popular PM (65%PPM) !
Rudd’s primary intention was support of a project dear to the heart of a person that Rudd had a high degree of respect for as a person and for what he was seeking to achieve, even when he was seriously ill. Certainly something to be commended!
Any kudos to Rudd himself would have been well down the order of considerations I would think and fair minded persons “would” have seen it that way also!
[What possible arguments are there in opposition to PR?]
Here’s a thought, just pretend that the present Senate is the Hof R. What would it have achieved so far after 2007? Which parties and independents would form government? How stable and/or effective would it be? Makes me shudder thinking about it.
It’s raining dogs and cats here in Chatswood, Sydney and what a good morning to sit and watch:
Duke Ellington’s Sophisticated Lady at the Cotton Club, Ovation Channel. The same channel that brought you endless Andre Riau, sigh, i forgive them. It’s called the hIGH and lOW.
Gary Bruce – #23
You must be in purgatory – only partially redeemed.
[Cmon william, Names names, dammitt]
Gus, the old Bilbo wants to the Judge, Prosecutor, Defendant, Jury and now the Comedian. 😉
[ PREMIER Kristina Keneally urged families to research and plan before they purchase pets as “pets are for life not just the holidays”. During 2008-09, NSW councils reported nearly 10,000 cats were dumped at pounds. “As a pet owner, this is a disturbing statistic,” Keneally said.]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/happy-xmas-voters-do-the-right-thing/story-e6frg6zo-1225814000724
Yes Kristina I am well aware of the statistics and the responsibility to provide a forever home to a pet.
Whilst on the subject of pets, I wished Keneally would take her transport minister David Campbell aside and have a quiet chat in his ear. Campbell has said he will not change the rules to allow pets on suburban trains. Just tell him to reconsider his policy and remember their are a lot of constituents with pets.
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/campaign-to-allow-pet-dogs-on-public-transport/1596480.aspx?storypage=0
[What I find so amazing about the 2 big party system is the total abandonment of any sense of principle by urgers and disciples of each of the parties. Ultimately, any criticism of the actions of one party is met with the defence by the urgers of that party that the action is justified because the other party did/does the same thing.]
What a load of codswallop! This is just your (Peter Young’s) opinion on a system that has been operating for over 100 years and has served the country fairly well over that time in comparison with multi party states such as Italy or Japan where one party has been dominant for decades!
[Believe it or not, the electorate (meaning myself, Peter Young) is neither interested or impressed by this juvenile behaviour. They (meaning myself Peter Young, speaking on behalf of everyone else) want something better.]
You don’t speak for me Peter and I am certain you don’t speak for the majority of others either!
30 Peter Young – that is purile stuff Peter.
Gary Bruce – #33
Did you mean post #31 was purile or did you actually mean post #30 was puerile?
[Yes Kristina I am well aware of the statistics and the responsibility to provide a forever home to a pet.]
Many wouldn’t be aware of the figures. It is fair enough for a leader to make such comments.
[Whilst on the subject of pets, I wished Keneally would take her transport minister David Campbell aside and have a quiet chat in his ear. Campbell has said he will not change the rules to allow pets on suburban trains. Just tell him to reconsider his policy and remember their are a lot of constituents with pets.]
I don’t want to see pets on public transport unless they’re there for a specific purpose eg. to help the blind. Our public transport is stretched just trying to cope with people.
33 Peter – Fair question. See 34 Peter that is what I meant.
[What possible arguments are there in opposition to PR?]
Italy!
A multitude of small parties all horse trading to become part of a government which sometimes only lasts a matter of a few months!
All pushing their own particular barrows in competition with each other both inside and outside government resulting in constant deal making which made responsible legislation impossible to achieve and open to takeover by a dictatorship!
Italy’s economy and social structure has been a basket case and well below its potential foe most of the last century except for a short period when it was governed by said dictator.
It’s now under the control of a shady billionaire who has been able to easily “buy” influence and keep himself out of jail.
IMO, a pretty good argument to keep our present system!
Gary Bruce – #35
[ Our public transport is stretched just trying to cope with people.]
Maybe at peak hour. How about outside peak hour? Last few times I have travelled on a suburban train there may have been 10 people in the carriage I travelled in. On each occasion I sat in the end compartment (side facing seats) alone. If that is your justification for continuing the ban, are you suggesting a compromise to allow pets on at non-peak hours? Or do you prefer a blanket ban at all times (except for guide dogs etc)?
What is the situation on Melbourne suburban trains?
[Gus, the old Bilbo wants to the Judge, Prosecutor, Defendant, Jury and now the Comedian]
What about a Lumberjack as well,we seem to have covered everything else
😉
[I suggest the reason the government is not prepared to negotiate with the Greens is purely political. To do so might be seen as giving some legitimacy to the Greens and the government is terrified of that possibility.]
Keep on deluding yourself!
I have seen “no” evidence that the Greens are seen by the 90% of the electorate as having “legitimacy”!
I have though, seen evidence in polling on the ETS, that there is a deal of “soft support” for the Greens position ie a solid percentage support the “Governments” targets etc.
Peter, our transport system is much the same as yours except we have trams as well.
Let’s for one moment agree to allow pets on the system at certain times. This then brings to mind the following questions.
What public transport do we allow them on? Trains? Trams? Buses?
Surely it would have to be all to be consistent and worthwhile.
The trains maybe quiet in off peak but are the buses and trams?
What are considered pets?
What times and days are they allowed on and who polices this?
If, for example, the time runs out at say 3.00 pm but you got onto the train at 2.00pm and found yourself still on the train with your pet after 3.00 in the busier time, what happens?
[I suggest the reason the government is not prepared to negotiate with the Greens is purely political. To do so might be seen as giving some legitimacy to the Greens and the government is terrified of that possibility.]
Didn’t the Greens Party vote against the only serious climate change legislation presented to parliament, just like the Liberal Party? I assumed they had the same ‘do nothing’ approach.
scorpio – #37
Are you of the view that the Tasmanian system is a disaster? Perhaps it is an example of a PR system operated under Australian conditions, and therefore more akin to what might happen in Australia.
Just to add a couple of problems to the “pets on public transport discussion Peter, what if most pet owners decided to use this new law and decided to travel in large numbers on the train for eaxample. Quite a few find themselves in the one carriage. I can see the potential for chaos now. So what rules need to be brought in to make sure this doesn’t happen. Oh, and who wants to sit in carriages with animals that want to pee and crap everywhere?
Just a few thoughts.
Gary Bruce
[Which parties and independents would form government? How stable and/or effective would it be?]
Which parties and independents form government is decided on the floor of the parliament the way it should be. However, your Senate analogy is not valid. We cannot know what the make-up of the Reps would be if based on PR. For most PR countries the minimum for representation is 5% of the vote.
Also, if the governnmment were formed by a genuinely PR house, with multi-member seats instead of preferential voting, then it is highly likely that there would be a break up of the majors into their factions, because down that path lies power for the minority factions. The Senate vote is also skewed to an extent by the influence of the two party system in the Reps.
As to stability, there aren’t too many problems with that in those countries without major cultural, social, ethnic, geographical or religious conflict problems. These cause problems whatever voting system you have – eg Israel, Italy (PR); India, Pakistan, Algeria (single member district).
For examples, look to Western Europe where 21 of the 28 countries have a form of PR. Also, look to the new eastern European countries – all of which have adopted PR, or South Africa and New Zealand.
Why should we be different and deny representation to large segments of voters every election, unless it is to protect the failed two party system (worst current example, NSW)? With the notable and worthy exception of Tasmania of course.
scorpio –
ah, the good old ‘just look at Italy’ chestnut 🙂 See above. Some countries are going to have problems regardless of thier voting system. We aren’t one of them. How much instability and rioting is there in Tasmania?
[IMO, a pretty good argument to keep our present system!]
The only people our current system serves well is the grand party duopoly of the LNP and ALP. It does not serve anybody well to have the smaller parties/independent groups squeezed out of the house in which government is formed.
That is anti-democratic in the pure sense.
[Are you of the view that the Tasmanian system is a disaster? Perhaps it is an example of a PR system operated under Australian conditions, and therefore more akin to what might happen in Australia.]
It might work in Tasmania but I can’t see how it could possibly work in mainland Australia on either a State basis or more especially, Federally.
Tasmania is small, not much bigger than a shire in Queensland, with a population less than a quarter that of the Brisbane/Logan/Pine Rivers metropolitan population and a GDP of just $2.1B compared with about $3.3B for Brisbane City Council “alone”!
In effect, the Tasmanian Government is not much more than a largish shire council and its PPE system is similar to that of shire councils. That system wouldn’t work for mainland states as they arr just too big and too diverse. See my post on Italy!
[The state has a population of 500,000 (as of December 2008[update]), of whom almost half reside in the greater Hobart precinct. Tasmania’s area is 68,401 square kilometres (26,410 sq mi), of which the main island covers 62,409 square kilometres ]
[The Shire of Barcoo is a Local Government Area located in south western Queensland, Australia.
It covers an area of 62,000.7 square kilometres (23,938.6 sq mi), and has existed as a local government entity since 1887.]
[Brisbane City Council administers the larger part of the Brisbane metropolitan area and has a larger population than any other Local Government Area in Australia. The population of the Brisbane City Council is roughly equivalent to the populations of Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory combined. The Council administers a budget of over AUD$3 billion.]
#41 – Gary Bruce
You have asked a number of sensible questions regarding the minutiae of a comprehensive pet policy. As I understand it David campbell, has a blanket opposition to any further changes. I would be happy to set out a detailed policy covering all your concerns (not too difficult as a few organisations already have general policies). However, lets just examine the situation at present in NSW regarding various types of public transport.
1. Monorail – Allowed.
2. Light rail – Allowed.
3. Suburban rail – Not allowed except for guide dogs and assistance animals.
4. Buses – Allowed at the discretion of the driver if caged.
5. ferries – Allowed.
6. Taxis – Allowed at discretion of driver and provided is secured by a seat belt (driver faces a $350 odd TIN if not seat-belted).
I am not sure what the rational is for the different treatments.
As I understood it, dogs were allowed on Melbourne trains but I might be wrong on that.
An interesting case arose, I think it in was England, in relation to a cab driver. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of disability and also religion. A blind man was refused carriage in a taxi with a guide dog. He went to the relevant anti-discrimination board. The taxi driver defended the claim. He was Muslim. His beliefs are that dogs are unclean. Thus the anti-discrimination board were faced with 2 conflicting “discriminations”, one on the basis of disability, the other religion. The board found for the taxi driver. In other words, the religious rule over-ruled the disability rule. It is possible to rationalise the Board’s decision from a practical point of view – the disabled driver could find another taxi with a non-Muslim driver whereas the driver must have his rights violated if he was forced to carry the guide dog.
As to your further questions I will get back soon.
[However, your Senate analogy is not valid.]
It certainly is valid. I’m talking about the personalities and the relative numbers. That could certainly happen under any PR system. Quite obviously you see the danger in having an H of R mage up of such personalities and numbers.
[The only people our current system serves well is the grand party duopoly of the LNP and ALP.]
And the Greens work under this same system and have every opportunity to increase their vote to become a major party.
mage = made
[Oh, and who wants to sit in carriages with animals that want to pee and crap everywhere?]
I agree, and cafe owners should be banned from encouragiing pets by putting down water bowls for dogs outside their cafes among the outdoor tables near the food being served.
More generally, dogs and cats are a disaster in this country environmentally. If people want pets, then let them keep native reptiles. They are much cleaner and free of transmissable diseases- also easier to look after, and less demanding of the owner’s time. It could be quite a good look at the cafe with a small python around one’s neck or a small water dragon on the lapel while sipping a machiatto.
🙂