Support NeoGAF

[seldead]

As disappointing as it'd be for Ludlam to lose his seat, I'd go as far as saying I'd rather the PUP getting another seat than having the sports party in parliament.

 

[lexi]

So a party that gets 10% of first preference votes will have 0 representation. Fuck this stupid fucking system.

 

[Dead Man]

So a party that gets 10% of first preference votes will have 0 representation. Fuck this stupid fucking system.

The basic system is okay, it is the rorting by preference farming that has broken it. Make people only be a member of one party, require certain membership levels to get on the ballot, or a large list of signatures, and I think most of the problems would be reduced.

 

[markot]

In the past two weeks, 523 people have arrived by boat and claimed asylum in Australia.

Thanks Abboot.

And closing the Aus institute of criminology? They do great work >.<

 

[Arksy]

Fuck the Senate, won't pass a constitutional challenge. Boycotts are by their definition political and therefore can't really be legislated against.

In the past two weeks, 523 people have arrived by boat and claimed asylum in Australia.

Thanks Abboot.

And closing the Aus institute of criminology? They do great work >.<

No, they don't.

 

[Dead Man]

No, they don't.

In what way do they not?

 

[Arksy]

In what way do they not?

Because they're basically a taxpayer funded lobby group.

 

[markot]

how?

 

[Arksy]

They're political because they make recommendations as a part of their report. I have no problem with a body dedicated to the gathering of data on crime as long as it's;

1) Not done by the Federal Government.

2) Not a political organisation.

 

[markot]

They make recommendations based on the evidence. Suggestions for how to reduce crime rates, reoffending... etc...

 

[Arksy]

Doesn't stop it from being a political organisation.

 

[Jintor]

Well, sure, they're political in that sense... in the same way the Australian Law Reform Commission or the Australian Human Rights Council is political...

 

[Arksy]

Well, sure, they're political in that sense... in the same way the Australian Law Reform Commission or the Australian Human Rights Council is political...

I hope those are next to go!

 

[Jintor]

Don't toy with me like this arksy

 

[Arksy]

Hahaha. I just don't think it's right for taxpayer money to be given to groups to campaign for things that we might fundamentally disagree with.

 

[Dead Man]

They're political because they make recommendations as a part of their report. I have no problem with a body dedicated to the gathering of data on crime as long as it's;

1) Not done by the Federal Government.

2) Not a political organisation.

Gathering of data, not done by government? You want a private company to collate all the crime stats? Mate, you are some kind of amazing libertarian.

Hahaha. I just don't think it's right for taxpayer money to be given to groups to campaign for things that we might fundamentally disagree with.

What do they campaign for, and what do you disagree with?

 

[Arksy]

Gathering of data, not done by government? You want a private company to collate all the crime stats? Mate, you are some kind of amazing libertarian.

Say it after me! F-E-D-E-R-A-L Government!

And that's for a pretty simple reason actually, crime is a state responsibility that the Federal Government shouldn't stick its nose into.

 

[markot]

Alot of people disagree with spending money on new fighter jets. Should we still buy them?

And lets face it, these commissions and the like, generally, are of more use to the public then a fighter jet.

 

[Dead Man]

Say it after me! F-E-D-E-R-A-L Government!

And that's for a pretty simple reason actually, crime is a state responsibility that the Federal Government shouldn't stick its nose into.

So you want the state governments to do it? Yeah, that will help inform FEDERAL policy. :/

 

[Arksy]

There's a pretty big difference between the government doing things you disagree with because it has a mandate from other people, to the government trying to influence the public a certain way. Governments should reflect the will of the people, not the other way around.

So you want the state governments to do it? Yeah, that will help inform FEDERAL policy. :/

What Federal policy? Crime is a state responsibility.

 

[bomma_man]

There's a pretty big difference between the government doing things you disagree with because it has a mandate from other people, to the government trying to influence the public a certain way. Governments should reflect the will of the people, not the other way around.



What Federal Policy? Crime is a state responsibility.

What about... Commonwealth crimes

 

[Jintor]

Wait... so it's okay for State governments to influence people then? *scratches head*

 

[Arksy]

What about... Commonwealth crimes

What about them? The AIC covers statistics and commissions reports over all criminal jurisdictions. I'd have less of an issue with it if it were to be restricted to Federal Criminal Law except then it would be a waste of taxpayers money because the body of Federal Criminal Law is tiny as compared to the States.

However it would still be a political organisation.

Wait... so it's okay for State governments to influence people then? *scratches head*

No. Hence the two criteria I set out above.

 

[Jintor]

So it's okay for private citizenry to influence people, never mind that the only private citizenry that could probably afford to finance an institution that influences people would disproportionately be white, old and wealthy?

I mean, sure, publicly-funded research isn't all sunshine and roses, but it's a fair sight better than the Palmer Institute of Higher Sociological Studies...

Additionally, your criteria are insane. The moment any study concludes and says "Well, this is what's wrong now, and here's what you need to do to fix it in our estimation", they're advocating policy, hence they're political.

 

[bomma_man]

What about them? The AIC covers statistics and commissions reports over all criminal jurisdictions. I'd have less of an issue with it if it were to be restricted to Federal Criminal Law except then it would be a waste of taxpayers money because the body of Federal Criminal Law is tiny as compared to the States.

You didn't say that though.

Count me as another person that doesn't understand the States rights thing Jintor. Especially in the Australian context, where it isn't a neo-confederate dog whistle (as far as I know).

 

[Arksy]

So it's okay for private citizenry to influence people,

Yes. That's the essence of a democracy.

never mind that the only private citizenry that could probably afford to finance an institution that influences people would disproportionately be white, old and wealthy?

Is that even true? Are you saying Getup! is backed by old, wealthy white people?

 

[Jintor]

Fine, the majority of people that would bother.

It's like you're telling me the Murdoch Press devouring the world is fine because we've got Crikey. One is almost certainly going to be better-funded and more influential than the other.

 

[bomma_man]

Yes. That's the essence of a democracy.



Is that even true? Are you saying Getup! is backed by old, wealthy white people?

If lobby groups are the essence of democracy then I want out.

 

[Dead Man]

There's a pretty big difference between the government doing things you disagree with because it has a mandate from other people, to the government trying to influence the public a certain way. Governments should reflect the will of the people, not the other way around.



What Federal policy? Crime is a state responsibility.

Federal crimes exist, and communication between states is at a point where coordination of the databases would be extremely wasteful, I thought you would be against replicating administration costs.

Government trying to influence the public? By complicating and publishing statistics? Better get rid of the census as well.

 

[Arksy]

Federal crimes exist, and communication between states is at a point where coordination of the databases would be extremely wasteful, I thought you would be against replicating administration costs.

Government trying to influence the public? By complicating and publishing statistics? Better get rid of the census as well.

The Census isn't political. The ABS isn't coming out and saying that Australia's population should be X or we have too many religion Y in our community.

 

[Dead Man]

Hey PhantomZone and Ventron, you see how Arksy stays engaged when he starts or enters a discussion? That's how you discuss, even when you disagree.

The Census isn't political. The ABS isn't coming out and saying that Australia's population should be X or we have too many religion Y in our community.

So because they look at the efficacy of policy they are telling people what to do? I do not want a federal government that makes shit up on the run, I want a federal government that has a body that can assess legislation and see what the effects are. Otherwise you are just going to keep fucking it up. I also think you may be overstating how much lobbying or whatever you would like to call it they do, they present information.

Edit: Here, have a look at the website, and tell me which bits you find objectionable, because at the moment I have no understanding of what it is they do that is offensive, besides existing as a federal body.

http://www.aic.gov.au/

 

[Dryk]

If lobby groups are the essence of democracy then I want out.

I'll take good ol' scientific reports over lobby groups any day. Every election cycle I move closer and closer to giving up on democracy completely and supporting the inevitable technocratic revolution.

 

[Arksy]

So because they look at the efficacy of policy they are telling people what to do? I do not want a federal government that makes shit up on the run, I want a federal government that has a body that can assess legislation and see what the effects are. Otherwise you are just going to keep fucking it up. I also think you may be overstating how much lobbying or whatever you would like to call it they do, they present information.

I agree wholeheartedly. I can't exactly tell you why the Libs decided the AIC had to go but I feel that if the AIC had the same kind of standards as the ABS I (personally) wouldn't have a problem with them. (I can get over the Federal Government being engaged in data collection, after all they do have that power under s 51(xi) of the Constitution).

This is also why States are a good thing. The Federal Government is one body, it comes up with a policy and it applies to the whole country. What if the policy is bad? What if it's disastrous? You have nothing to compare it to. If the states were in control of that policy area, you would have six different policies. You would see how those policies play out in the real world and would give data collecting bodies and policymakers and ultimately the public some real teeth and confidence with their legislation. You can emulate/copy/apply the policy that works best.

 

[Jintor]

And you'd also have a confusing mish-mash of regulations and standards that apply differently over differing areas, and it's not just confined to rail gauges these days. But your point is taken.

I have to ask though, did you seriously mean the stuff about the ALRC and the AHRC?

 

[Dead Man]

I agree wholeheartedly. I can't exactly tell you why the Libs decided the AIC had to go but I feel that if the AIC had the same kind of standards as the ABS I (personally) wouldn't have a problem with them. (I can get over the Federal Government being engaged in data collection, after all they do have that power under s 51(xi) of the Constitution).

This is also why States are a good thing. The Federal Government is one body, it comes up with a policy and it applies to the whole country. What if the policy is bad? What if it's disastrous? You have nothing to compare it to. If the states were in control of that policy area, you would have six different policies. You would see how those policies play out in the real world and would give data collecting bodies and policymakers and ultimately the public some real teeth and confidence with their legislation. You can emulate/copy/apply the policy that works best.

Again, can you point out exactly what is they have done, or do that you find objectionable? Not general statements, but an action of theirs you think is wrong, or a publication or something.

 

[Arksy]

Again, can you point out exactly what is they have done, or do that you find objectionable? Not general statements, but an action of theirs you think is wrong, or a publication or something.

The AIC has been attacked in the past for advocating for looser gun control. Source.

 

[Dead Man]

The AIC has been attacked in the past for advocating for looser gun control. Source.

1. That is a shithouse conference, somebody should have been fired for that. As they should have been for editing the submission made by GCA.

2. That is no reason to get rid of the organisation, it is a reason to make sure it is run properly. It is not a failure of the intention of the institute, it is a failure of implementation.

 

[Arksy]

1. That is a shithouse conference, somebody should have been fired for that. As they should have been for editing the submission made by GCA.

2. That is no reason to get rid of the organisation, it is a reason to make sure it is run properly. It is not a failure of the intention of the institute, it is a failure of implementation.

Fair points.

 

[Dead Man]

Fair points.

In other news, this is an interesting little editorial from Alan Kohler on the NBN:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...rmation-technology/nbn-board-has-run-away-why

The resignation of the entire board of NBN Co has brought into sharp focus my membership of the NBN Peanut Gallery. Perhaps it is time to move on, to acknowledge the Coalition’s mandate and Get A Life.

But, no – I have decided to stay on; my country needs me. Ziggy Switkowski, on the other hand, needs to think twice.

The current chair, Siobhan McKenna and her five colleagues, will no doubt be unable to get out of the place quick enough. Each will be hoping not to be the one whom the new minister and shareholder, Malcolm Turnbull, asks to stay on to assist with the transition.

Meanwhile it is persuasively suggested that the minister has prevailed upon the former chief executive of Telstra, chair of Opera Australia and examiner of the Essendon Football Club to be executive chairman of NBN Co, which is another term for CEO.

It may be too late already, but Ziggy Switkowski needs to ask himself why the previous incumbents have all run away. It is not, I suggest, because the new shareholder is an unpleasant or unreasonable person, or because they are all members of the Society of Fibre Fanatics.

It is because there is a large problem at the heart of the Coalition’s NBN policy. The key difference to the project that has come with the change of shareholder is not that two-thirds of the connections will be copper instead of fibre, which will make it cheaper and a bit slower. It is that competition will be allowed.

The NBN will not be a monopoly, and to bring that point home, David Teoh’s TPG Telecom last week announced that it will connect fibre to capital city apartment buildings. The company already has 3,800 kilometres of fibre connecting businesses to the internet; now it’s planning to move into high-density residential, which is the most profitable.

Telstra is also going to be allowed to operate its hybrid fibre-coaxial cable in competition with the NBN as well, covering the rest of the most profitable bits of the capital cities.

The NBN was, at heart, apart from being Stephen Conroy’s Monument, a mechanism for city broadband users to subsidise regional areas. All Australians would be connected to fibre, fixed wireless or satellite and all would pay the same, no matter what the cost of connecting them.

To drive that point home the NBN rollout began in rural Tasmania, the least profitable place to begin.

For that principle to work it requires there to be no alternative in the city, where prices could, and arguably should, be lower.

Yet under the heading of Competition, the Coalition’s broadband policy says this: “Competitive and free markets have driven innovation and cost reductions in telecommunications since the early 1990s. The Coalition will remove or waive impediments to infrastructure competition introduced to provide a monopoly to Labor’s NBN …”

Unhappily the policy leaves it at “will”, and does not employ the “will investigate…” of the cautious policy statement. This is in keeping with other incautious Coalition policies (“we will stop the boats, scrap the tax” etc).

If David Teoh is allowed to have the apartment buildings in the cities, then the Malcolm Turnbull/Ziggy Switkowski NBN will simply be an unprofitable competitor on price in the cities and an unprofitable, supplier of fibre to the node services to rural Australia.

It will, in short, be a donkey, a money sinkhole, a political noose, and an end-of-career nightmare for a mild-mannered nuclear physicist who might end up wishing he’d stayed at the opera.

 

[Arksy]

And you'd also have a confusing mish-mash of regulations and standards that apply differently over differing areas, and it's not just confined to rail gauges these days. But your point is taken.

I have to ask though, did you seriously mean the stuff about the ALRC and the AHRC?

Well, I do like some of the work the ALRC has done. I feel like the AHRC on the other hand has a lot to answer for, especially concerning their attacks on fundamental liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of association. Source.

 

[Jintor]

Well, the dividing line on Freedom of Speech/Association in Australia has always been a pretty contentious issue. Whatever camp they fell into, some taxpayer would likely disagree.

 

[roosters93]

The world would be a better place if the IPA was abolished instead.

This is also why States are a good thing. The Federal Government is one body, it comes up with a policy and it applies to the whole country. What if the policy is bad? What if it's disastrous? You have nothing to compare it to.

What about... states. As in other sovereign states. With 200+, I'm sure we can find at least a few comparable states for all types of policy.

 

[markot]

IPA is so awful it makes my eyes bleed.

 

[Dead Man]

The world would be a better place if the IPA was abolished instead.




What about... states. As in other sovereign states. With 200+, I'm sure we can find at least a few comparable states for all types of policy.

It also is not like the state to state data becomes impossible either, it's just that all the data is one place. Comparisons between state policies are still possible under the current system.

 

[hidys]

IPA is so awful it makes my eyes bleed.

I really can't stand the Institute of Liberal Party Policy either.

 

[Arksy]

I really can't stand the Institute of Liberal Party Policy either.

If only it was the Institute of Liberal Party Policy.

 

[hidys]

If only it was the Institute of Liberal Party Policy.

I'm sure turning Australia into a libertarian paradise would be the quickest way to make Albo PM.

 

[Arksy]

I'm sure turning Australia into a libertarian paradise would be the quickest way to make Albo PM.

Albo has to win the ALP leadership ballot first!

 

[hidys]

Albo has to win the ALP leadership ballot first!

Yes but he will.

 

[Arksy]

Yes but he will.

You reckon? I know my friends in the Labor party who are grassroots hate Shorten but apparently the Unions are pushing him hard.