octave

A large percentage of people these days vote by mail, so I suppose it is more about what comes through their letterbox. I am not sure, really, how much difference, at least in the short term, a government makes. Inflation at the moment is present in countries with governments of all flavours. Interest rates are not usually high in one country and low in another. In Australia, some people are complaining about Albanese, and in NZ, the conservative PM Luxon is rather unpopular. If one were to fall into a coma and wake up several years down the track, I don't think it would be immediately obvious who was in government. I first became conscious of politics in the early 70s. By my reckoning, this is my 12th PM. My economic state has not fluctuated wildly with each change of PM

Yes, totally agree. For the last 30 or so years, I have refused how-to-vote cards. Prior to this, I would take a how-to vote card from every party in order to not to signal my voting intentions. These days, my wife and I look at how to vote information online prior to voting. We don't necessarily vote identically, but we do walk in with enough information. Often, we don't follow any particular party's advice, but we try to vote strategically

The idea that our present government is socialist is a little hard to fathom. I looked up the definition of socialism. Socialism is an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production, rather than private ownership. It aims to reduce inequality by controlling resources and distributing goods based on societal needs rather than profit accumulation, often managed through state planning or worker councils. Key aspects of socialism include: Distinction from Capitalism: While capitalism is built on private ownership, free markets, and profit, socialism challenges these by proposing collective management to eliminate class disparities. Ownership: Major resources, such as factories and natural resources, are owned by the state or cooperatives. Economic Goal: The focus is on distributing wealth equally among workers, as opposed to capitalist systems which allow for private wealth accumulation. Role of the State: Socialism is often seen as a stage where the government or working class takes control of the economy and planning. Distinction from Capitalism: While capitalism is built on private ownership, free markets, and profit, socialism challenges these by proposing collective management to eliminate class disparities. Australian Communist Party +6 Socialism varies from democratic forms that work within market economies to more centralized, planned systems. While sometimes conflated with communism, it is often viewed in Marxist theory as a lower stage of development preceding communism. I can't really see how our government fulfils these criteria. Businesses are not being nationalised, and the rich are definitely getting even richer. Wikipedia +4

Kyle, my post simply pointed out that your statement, "They have literally NO wind turbines to be seen anywhere" is not quite right. Having said that, I understand that there are other ways of replacing spinning inertia, such as grid-forming batteries and synchronous condensers. These technologies get better every year. I watched a video this morning regarding someone called Karl Rabago, who has a long history in the power grid industry. He talks about the "internetization" of the power grid, which means instead of a dumb one-way grid, we have a smarter grid that works more akin to the internet. The internet seldom goes down over a large area. He talks about islanding, whereby smaller areas, say a suburb, have their rooftop solar and a community-level battery. Yes, they are still connected to the grid, but are able to be disconnected when it suits the grid. Technology is moving fast. It seems unlikely that the old grid would be the best system for all time. Just as the communication system has revolutionised, so will the grid.

Kyle, my post simply pointed out that your statement, "They have literally NO wind turbines to be seen anywhere" is not quite right. Having said that, I understand that there are other ways of replacing spinning inertia, such as grid-forming batteries and synchronous condensers. These technologies get better every year. I watched a video this morning regarding someone called Karl Rabago, who has a long history in the power grid industry. He talks about the "internetization" of the power grid, which means instead of a dumb one-way grid, we have a smarter grid that works more akin to the internet. The internet seldom goes down over a large area. He talks about islanding, whereby smaller areas, say a suburb, have their rooftop solar and a community-level battery. Yes, they are still connected to the grid, but are able to be disconnected when it suits the grid. Technology is moving fast. It seems unlikely that the old grid would be the best system for all time. Just as the communication system has revolutionised, so will the grid.

We went through the capital gains tax on our house on 44 acres. The process involved valuing the property. We did this ourselves (which is legal but unusual). I think we ended up paying around $1500. The important thing to remember is that the two hectare area you are allowed to exclude does not have to be in one area; it just has to total 2 hectares. In our case, we included a tight area around the house. We also included a small dam and our river frontage. This meant the balance of the land to be included for GST was relatively low value. This is perfectly legal and satisfies the tax department. We spent many months doing our research, and we adopted standard industry valuation practices. Note this was done in 2017, so I can't be sure things haven't changed since then.

Whatever the current number is I would say that this statement is incorrect: "They have literally NO wind turbines to be seen anywhere" I am guessing that there are fewer turbines in the North Island due to the dominance of hydro. NZ has 80%-90% renewables Key Renewable Energy Sources in NZ Hydropower: The primary source, providing roughly 60.5% of electricity, utilizing major dam infrastructure. Geothermal: A significant, stable source contributing to the base load, utilizing hot water and steam from the ground. Wind: An rapidly increasing contributor, with significant investment in new wind farms. Solar: Growing rapidly, with over 850 MW of distributed (rooftop) solar as of early 2026 and increasing grid-connected solar farms. Battery Storage: Emerging technologies, such as the 100-megawatt grid battery at Huntly Power Station, are being installed to manage demand spikes. Wind power is a rapidly growing, key component of New Zealand's renewable energy sector, with over 1,000 MW of installed capacity. Recent projects like the Harapaki Wind Farm have expanded capacity, while future offshore wind developments are projected to boost GDP and support renewable energy targets. Wind often complements hydro and geothermal generation to provide reliable, low-carbon electricity.

AI Overview As of late 2024, New Zealand has 21 onshore wind farms operating, comprising approximately 653 wind turbines. These wind farms provide roughly 12% of the country's total installed electricity generation capacity, with over 1GW of capacity, and contribute to powering over 620,000 homes. Science Learning Hub +1 Key details about wind energy in New Zealand: Largest Wind Farms: The 220 MW [Turitea wind farm] near Palmerston North is among the largest, alongside [Tararua] and [West Wind]. Generation Capacity: Wind energy's share of total electricity generation has increased from 2% in 2007 to roughly 12% in 2024. Future Development: Numerous new projects are in development, aiming for wind to contribute a higher percentage of the country's electricity by 2030. Science Learning Hub +2

I do have to push back against that. I visit NZ each year because my son lives there. There are numerous windfarms within sight of Wellington. We have done many trips around NZ, and there are many windfarms. I have some video of a wind farm you can visit near Wellington, where you can literally stand under the arc of a spinning turbine. OPERATING Onshore Wind Farms

We had a reverse mortgage for quite a while. I think the maximum we went to was about 20k. The thing is, most of this was used to make home improvements, which more than paid for itself when we sold the house. The other thing that worked in our favour was the fact that during the 10 years we had the reverse mortgage, the value of the house increased at a greater rate. Of course, for those undisciplined, you could conceivably burn through the value of your house. I know of elderly people who are struggling but live in a huge house, which is both too much for them to maintain and just too big for 1 or 2 people. At 80 or 90 you would have to be pretty irresponsible to blow through $500 000. We sold our 44-acre property and now live in a nice unit. The profit from selling the property allowed us to retire in our mid 50s whilst we are still fit enough to travel, bushwalk, kayak and cycle. Too many people (in my opinion) hang on to an overly large house whilst spending their remaining years in poverty. Although we do not need one at this point, I would not rule out another reverse mortgage. Here is an interesting article. This little‑known government scheme can help retirees tap into $3 trillion of housing wealth

In the press conference, they detailed the charges. I don't believe that at any point they pronounced him guilty. He was found civilly liable 2023. This was appealed against, and the ruling was upheld.

I don't really understand the mathematics of returning CTP premiums if you don't claim. Here is a breakdown of how the premiums are utilised. 🟦 Victoria — Transport Accident Commission (TAC) Victoria runs a single government-run, no-fault scheme. Where your premium goes (roughly): ~60–70% → benefits to injured people ~20–30% → admin & scheme costs ~5–10% → operating surplus (reinvested, not profit in the private sense) Why it’s relatively efficient: No need to prove fault → fewer lawyers involved Centralised system → lower duplication Standardised benefits → faster payouts Where would the money to refund premiums come from?

Yes, I believe there are policies that part insurance and part investment. But still the risk the insurance company takes on your behalf does not come for free. No company would assume the risk for free. I believe such policies are referred to as "Whole Life" or Endowment Policies"

Yep, I think maybe both of these.

Yes, but still don't get a refund if you don't claim, which you keep thinking you should be entitled to. Well, partly, you may be hard-hearted enough to prefer a world where a paraplegic was just left to die. More importantly, civilised societies don't really work if they are based on everyone for themselves. We acknowledge that as people age, they need more support. We pay pensions. Whilst we may pay tax during our lives, the growing proportion of the aging population means that younger taxpayers are helping to pay for older people. The medical system, in terms of cost, is skewed towards older folks. Perhaps we should greatly increase the Medicare levy for people over sixty and decrease the Levy for the young who seldom need hospital care. You really only seem to give a sh1t about yourself and then make posts looking for sympathy or pity because ..... poor you. I doubt that anyone here gives a toss about your constant moaning. I would assume that most people here own a car and have to pay CTP. Although no one enjoys parting with money, have you noticed you are the only one who seems to be struggling to cope with everyday modern life? Medicare is a good example of a system where we all contribute, and when we ourselves need it, the medical treatment is there. It is very much like your issue with CPT.

Who says they do invest it? If they do, it is very short-term. You seem to think that the premiums you pay are pure profit without seeming to understand that the money they pay out to people injured IS comprised of all the premiums paid. If they gave back all premiums of people who did not claim, there would be no money to pay out. The idea that the only value of insurance is if you make a claim. When I lived in the bush, I had house insurance. One year I dropped the ball and neglected to renew. When I discovered that I was anxious, as it was a bad bushfire season. Once I renewed, I relaxed knowing that if my house burnt down, I would not be destitute. That is the value of insurance. Two years after I sold this property, a bushfire ripped through this area. Fortunately, the house did survive, although I am betting there was some damage, and I imagine a claim by the new owner would have been made. During most of my working life, I was self-employed or worked under contract to someone else. I was required to have public indemnity insurance, yeah, sure, a bit of a pain, but at least if I crewed up or even was accused of screwing up, I would not lose my house if sued. That is the value of insurance. Last year in NSW, 331 people were killed, and a huge 11120 were seriously injured. In your world, would these seriously injured only be looked after if they or other involved drivers chose to take out insurance? About 25 years ago, my wife was driving in a car park. A car full of young hoons smashed into her. She was unharmed, but the car suffered a lot of damage. This was quite an old car, so we did not have comprehensive insurance; however, of course, being responsible people, we did have 3rd party property. These hoons had no insurance. In the end, we could not get any money out of them and ended up scrapping the car at our expense. Now this was just a matter of damaged property but imagine this scenario if there had been injuries and the drivers had no third-party injury insurance. The bottom line GON is that in a modern, civilised society, we do subsidise each other. Although wage earners pay a Medicare levy, it does not fully cover a long hospital visit. Yes, the people who are healthy and need little medical care do subsidise those who require care. Sooner or later, all of us will need care. The fact that if I have an accident, there are medical facilities available is the mark of a modern, civilised society.

Yes, OME, I am in complete agreement with you. My reference to mileage was just to throw a bone to poor old GON.

If it were voluntary and a sizable chunk of drivers opted out, there would be a smaller pool of contributors, and most likely the cost would be greater. I have no problem with a more sophisticated system where premiums depend on kilometres travelled, although this is complicated and discriminates against country people who may have to travel long distances. When I lived in the country, I did around 45000 km a year, and a trip to work was 100km each way (200 per day). Now I live in the city with good public transport, so I am around 5000 km per year. My compulsory insurance premium is probably subsidising country drivers, but I don't really mind. You say you could haggle, but I think your major complaint was that you seemed to believe your premiums should be refunded if you don't claim. So even if you could shave $50 of your premiums, you still would not get it back. The people in the hotel garden in Daylsford who were killed or injured by the driver, who had a medical episode, deserve something. Compulsory insurance is not just to cover bad drivers; it is to cover the victims of bad drivers. I understand that you believe you are a great driver and could never make a mistake. That could be true (but I doubt it) but what if you are hit by a drunk driver or someone overtaking badly, or someone who drives through a red light, or perhaps answering their mobile and becoming distracted? What you are saying is that your medical treatment or rehabilitation is purely determined by whether the driver who hits you has bothered to take out third-party injury insurance, and if they haven't, you are screwed. That is the nature of insurance, and most grown-ups understand that. You seem to group drivers into good and bad and I suppose you think that only bad drivers are involved in accidents. Apart from the fact that everyone is capable of making a mistake, so-called good drivers are often the victims of bad drivers and perhaps bad drivers would be less likely to take out insurance. Where does that leave the good driver who is injured by the bad driver? Again, because you don't seem to be able to understand. CTP covers all victims of traffic accidents, whether they cause the accident or are merely victims of someone else's bad driving. I don't know how many times I can say this. You do get something; you get some protection from being sued, and you also get some level of financial protection should you yourself be injured. I can't understand why you can't comprehend how insurance works. Perhaps you don't understand that the money paid out to claimants IS from premiums paid by people who do not claim. To use the example of a raffle, I recently bought tickets from a charity. The price is a campervan worth 165k. This vehicle is paid for by all of the ticket purchases. If all the people who did not win were to be refunded, how would they pay for the prize? At this point, you are going to say that the difference is that buying a raffle ticket is not compulsory, and that is true. Let's consider this. You employ an electrician to do some work on your house. They screw up, and your house burns down. My understanding is that electricians have mandatory Public Liability Insurance. This would pay to rebuild YOUR house, and I suspect you would be here whinging (again) if your house burnt down and there was no insurance. How are you not getting this or is it a case of your usual modus operandi being to whinge about everything? When I was flying, I understood that I had obligations. I accepted this like a grown-up. These obligations were onerous, and for many years I accepted them. The last thing I would do is cry on my friend's shoulder and say, "Oh, it is so unfair," because to me, that is a loser move. Driving a car is not necessarily cheap. Some people can't afford to replace worn tyres, sad but tough luck. If you want to operate a machine, you have to ensure that you are not endangering people either physically or financially. I assume you are struggling financially. As an act of charity, I am happy to donate $50 towards your CTP if you are genuinely struggling.

But it is not compulsory to drive. The fact is that people get injured in traffic accidents sometimes catastrophically. How, as a society, do we handle this? Do we deny people the means to live, perhaps as a paraplegic? If this insurance were not compulsory, would you not have it? If you were to cause an accident, would you be happy to be sued for every cent you have in order to provide for the person you may injure? If you yourself had life-changing injuries, would you want to be provided the financial means to help you live? You say you get nothing from this insurance, but what you get is protection from losing your house if you injure someone, and protection for yourself should the worst happen. In life, there are rights and responsibilities. To want the rights without the responsibilities is childish. Operating a car does involve responsibilities and expenses. I am compelled to have tyres on my car that are roadworthy, the brakes must be serviceable, etc. (oohhh it's so unfair sob sob). I have not had a significant accident in 46 years of driving; however, obviously, it could happen. I am not willing to lose my house if I injure someone. I also am not willing to be injured by another motorist, which could cause me to have to sell my house for my medical treatment. Sorry, but this is just another one of your endless list of "whinges"

I suppose if you buy a lotto ticket and you don't win, you feel you are entitled to a refund. You don't seem to understand how insurance works.

These were the reasons for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and we know how that turned out. Trump claimed to have obliterated Iran's nuclear material back in June, yet this is given as a reason to go to war. Was he lying back in June?

Other than at elections, public opinion can (but not always) direct a government. There are many examples of public opinion swaying the government. Here are just a few examples: Major examples where public opinion shifted government decisions 1. Same-Sex Marriage Postal Survey → legalisation The government initially resisted a parliamentary vote and instead held a national survey. Public support came in strongly (~61.6% “Yes”). Result: Parliament quickly legalised same-sex marriage. Why it matters: Shows public opinion directly triggered legislative change. 2. Medicare Co-payment Proposal → scrapped The Tony Abbott government proposed a $7 GP co-payment. Massive public backlash + concern about healthcare access. Doctors, patients, and states pushed back hard. Result: Policy abandoned. 3. WorkChoices Industrial Relations Reforms → repealed after election Introduced by John Howard. Widely unpopular—big union campaigns and public protests. Became a central issue in the 2007 election. Result: Government lost power; reforms were dismantled. 4. Live Cattle Export Ban to Indonesia → reversed Ban introduced after animal cruelty footage aired. Farmers and rural communities pushed back strongly. Public opinion split: animal welfare vs livelihoods. Result: Ban lifted and replaced with stricter regulations. 5. Australia Day Date Debate → policy shifts at local level Growing public debate about January 26. Many local councils moved citizenship ceremonies or stopped celebrations. Federal government pushed back at times, but later softened enforcement. Still evolving, but clearly driven by changing public attitudes. 6. Adani Carmichael Coal Mine Debate → approval despite opposition (but heavily modified) Massive public protests (especially environmental groups). Also strong support in regional Queensland for jobs. Result: Project approved, but with stricter conditions and scaled-down scope. Interesting case: public opinion didn’t stop it—but forced changes. 7. Robodebt Scheme Backlash → scrapped Automated debt recovery system caused widespread distress. Public outrage grew through media, legal challenges, and advocacy. Result: Scheme abandoned Government issued refunds and apology 8. Climate Policy and Emissions Targets Debate → gradual shifts Years of public pressure (especially younger voters + urban areas). Contributed to stronger emissions targets and rise of independents in 2022. Not one single reversal—but clear long-term influence.

Are you addressing that to me or to rgmwa?

Perhaps Albo does not want to involve Australia in a forever war. Trump claimed that he would not get the US into wars, but he has failed.

So what exactly are you proposing? Some countries, such as Switzerland, have citizen-initiated referenda. I am not sure if this would help you, though, because it would involve voting, and you are unable or unwilling to do that.