octave

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.

The country town I lived in had a small hospital that was appropriately sized for the town's population. The library was not as big as a city library, but quite good for the small population. A police station with one police officer. The road we lived on was 8km of pretty rough gravel and was only graded once a year, but again, we didn't really expect that the rate payers would build and maintain a city-standard road for 30 people. The reality is that if the area you live in were to have all of the infrastructure of a capital city, then you can expect more and more people to move to the country, destroying the very things that make living in a remote area good. Anywhere you live is going to have pros and cons. When we lived on a bush block, we loved the solitude. The last thing we wanted was a highway going past our place, or a large hospital next door or a supermarket. Perhaps an international airport? Not having the facilities was the price paid for solitude; everything has a price. Now I live in the burbs, lots of infrastructure, but I have to share it with a bigger population. I was happy living in the country, and now I am happy living in the burbs. I am sure there are always cases where a small town needs better medical facilities or whatever. It will always be the case that providing infrastructure to remote areas will be more expensive.

I think it is easy (even when I lived in the bush), but I am competent and able to cope with modern life. Look, there are homesteads in central Australia that rely on the School of the Air, and on the Flying Doctor for medical services. I don't imagine they whinge as much as you. I understand that you may not be very resilient and life is hard for you, but perhaps you need to look for ways to cope.

OK sure. I mean, where I lived, election day was a day where you went into town and meet friends, maybe have a coffee. I mean, what do you do if you need a doctor? Too far? Most people I knew in the bush went into town once a week. How do you get your groceries? Why not combine election day with shopping day or meeting friends day (you do have friends, don't you?) Apart from that, I think you are being disingenuous. You are trying to tell us that you don't vote because: A) it is too far, and there should be a way of voting very close to your gate. but also B) You're not voting because there is no one suitable to vote for. Sooo, which one is it? Or is it both? I assume that although much can be done online, you are saying that posting a letter? I haven't voted in person for many years, but voting by mail has a large window that must surely coincide with a visit to town for another reason. I have a question: where I lived, neighbours would call if they were going into town and ask if there was anything they could deliver or pick up. I am assuming you have no friendly neighbours. You paint quite a sad picture of your life. I do hope things can improve for you.

That is my thought as well.

Sorry, GON but I have zero sympathy for you. And some people meekly pay a fine that is ridiculously easy to get out of. As I said, I have failed to vote on 3 occasions and paid zero fines. If you are paying fines it is because you choose to. It is perhaps a question of "what have the Romans ever done for us" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ We live in a country with pretty good health, although like most things in life, it has it's problems; however, it doesn't tend to bankrupt people as it does in the US. If you believe you get nothing because you live in the bush, then move. I lived in the bush for 21 years and loved it, but I understood that in having the peace and quiet of a lovely bush block, I could not whine about not having the services of the city. There is a connection between the country life you enjoy and the 37km drive into town. If the facilities of a town were just down the road from your property, then you would be complaining about the amount of traffic. When I lived in the bush, I enjoyed the "solitude" but by the very definition of that word, services were further away. You can't realistically have both. So what is it that the non-Anglos get in the bush that you don't? I thought you moved to the bush so you would have to mix with non-Australians Again, why pay it at all? There are plenty of ways of avoiding it. So, exactly what is it you want? Do you want a post office built across the road from your property? You just can't have everything, the solitude a remote property must come at a cost, it is only "remote" because it is a "remote" If you think I am a city person who doesn't understand well, as I said, I have lived this life. It was great, with pros and cons, but worth it, and I never whinged about it because to me whinging about the place you live is lioke saying I have made a bad choice.

Actually, 9th on the safest country list (according to World Population Review)

Australia is 18th on the list of safest countries and well within the "low risk level" category. This is nothing to catastrofise over

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/safest-countries-in-the-world https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country

I watched the video. Before he presents the chart, he says, and I quote precisely, "I don't claim this sheet to be correct. I just ask the AI models to get an outside view" I notice that for violence, he quotes Rapes and assaults but not murders. The thing with murders is they are just about always reported, whereas rape and theft figures depend on the likelihood of those incidents being reported. Some countries, such as Sweden, have high rape statistics but also have a broader definition of what constitutes rape, therefore higher figures. In some countries, reporting rape is probably pointless and therefore not reported as often. As an example: "Rape in Afghanistan is legally a crime, but prosecutions are extremely rare due to social stigma, fear of retaliation, and deeply flawed legal processes." I imagine the number of rape prosecutions in Australia is much higher than in Afghanistan, but this does not mean Afghanistan is safer. Likewise, theft is under-reported in all countries to varying degrees. Another omission from this table could be gun deaths, especially when comparing Australia to the US (perhaps cherry picking data to suit the argument?) The thrust of the video is that you should go and live in Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Dubai or Cyprus. I am open-minded, but the evidence he presents is pretty shoddy.

Bloody sad stuff- Aus, one of the unsafest countries in the world. Based on early 2026 reports, the Netherlands, Australia, Iceland, Canada, and Switzerland are consistently ranked among the safest countries for travelers, often recognized for low crime, high stability, and excellent healthcare. Other top contenders include Ireland, New Zealand, Austria, and the UAE, while Canada has been noted as a top destination in some specific 2026 safety reports.

+ In New Zealand, light diesel vehicles (under 3,500 kg) are subject to Road User Charges (RUC) rather than a fuel tax at the pump. Standard Light Diesel Rate: The current RUC rate for standard light diesel vehicles is NZD $76 per 1,000 km. Per-Kilometer Breakdown: This equates to 7.6 cents per kilometer (plus admin/transaction fees when purchasing). Rental Vehicles: Many rental car providers pass this cost on, often charging around $0.0874 per km (including GST) to cover the RUC. How it Works: Vehicle owners must pre-purchase RUC licenses in increments of 1,000 km. Administration: The system relies on odometer readings, with updates checked during WoF inspections. Note: The RUC applies to diesel vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles (EVs) to fund road maintenance, ensuring all vehicles pay

I have failed to vote 3 times in my life, not purposely but I just forgot. Twice I failed to vote in council elections. When I got a fine notice I just said I was working outside the area and this was sufficient. Once was a state election. I said I was unwell that day. Just meekly paying the fine seems like punching yourself in the face to prove a point If you believe that compulsory voting is unjust then surely you believe surely you believe that the fine is unjust. Unless you want to be a martyr to the cause, why play ball with the authorities?