octave

I totally agree. I have been doing my research for the last 35 years. Independent audits indicate that its portfolio broadly aligns with my ethics. I suspect that many people don't actively choose or manage their super.

I know what shares are in my super. When it says Australian shares, that is Australian plus meeting the fund's ethics. Amongst other things, no fossil fuels or anything involving land clearing. Many investments in renewables and community projects. So no, not just any Australian shares.

I retired early (57), so we are living on our super. For about the last 30 years, we invested in Ethical Investments Super Fund because the investment portfolio broadly aligns with our ethics. Within this investment fund, you can choose among other things Australian shares or Overseas shares. We always stick to Australian shares, although overseas shares generally perform better. In the last financial year, Australian Shares in my super earned 10.7% whereas International shares earned 16% (but a little riskier) We prefer to invest in our own country so we are proactive and choose Australian rather than International even though we could probably make more with international. I would urge people to be proactive and select shares in areas that you support. It is extremely easy to change your super mix.

I really, really don't want to get drawn into this subject because it is a subject where people tend to passionately believe that one side is all good and one side is all bad, when clearly the truth lies somewhere between. I will always condemn unjustifiable violence wherever the perpetrator is, even if it i my own country. No, I do not think that the land has been taken since the 1947 partition plan can be given back. The problem is, though, that the process continues with settlers expanding into the West Bank, etc. Should the Palestinians just accept their territory slowly getting smaller and smaller? Again, I do not condone violence. It was inevitable that after the barbaric acts of October 7, there would be some action by the Israelis. For me, it comes down to proportionality. I am sure it is correct that the Palestinians hate Israelis and that Israelis hate Palestinians. This problem will never be solved until the mutual hatred can be sorted out. I was going to post a bunch of videos, but as I said I don't want to get too involved in a debate that is so polarised. Some of the vids involve settlers driving Palestinian farmers out of their olive orchards at harvest time, also driving away their livestock. A video of Israeli soldiers dragging kids out of bed to check their IDs at gunpoint. How could those kids possibly grow up without hatred? Two Israeli teenage boys beating an aged farmer on his own land. To quote another poster, "Peace does not lie at the end" My point is, it does not lie at the end of a Palestinian gun or an Israeli gun. I guess to sum up, I am definitely not pro-Hamas or pro-Israeli. I merely call out barbarity where I see it. Hamas is brutal, and so are the ultra-far-right members of the Israeli government.

I am not sure how large your council is or how many kilometres of road there would be or how often they would need to redo it, but 3 workers doesn't really seem enough (as far as I can see). The council is only responsible for some roads. The Kings Highway that I used to travel on is the responsibility of the NSW state government.

I just want to point out that I am not anti-culling done responsibly. I think making the council responsible is problematic. Should the council go onto private property to cull, or should they force the landowner to cull? One of the reasons the roo population has increased so much is farming, causing a plentiful food and water supply that did not exist in the past. I am definitely not having a go at farmers; I do believe they, out of self-interest, do cull heavily . Just doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations over the 21 years I lived in the bush but worked in the city (100km each way), I did (only including work travel 40 weeks a year (octave likes his holidays) in 21 years, that comes to 40000 per year times 21 years, which equals 840000 km. Half of these kms were mid-morning, so very little risk. That leaves 420000km. I used to finish work at 8 PM so this was all either in the dark or at dusk. As I said previously, I hit one roo which caused minor damage (just had to replace the plastic on the front of the car, and 1 wombat no damage to the car, but the wombat was totalled. I don't really believe in luck, however, I guess there is some randomness. However, it seems to me that driving style had to be the major factor. Again, I am not saying that culling has no place, but I think it is only part of the solution. I think driver education is probably the biggest factor. My trip to work would take an hour; however, the return trip could take an hour and a half. We just had to accept that. So sure, cull scientifically and clear the roadside in appropriate areas, but education is key. The town we lived outside of was Braidwood, which is on the highway between Canberra and Batemans Bay. In the summer months, on weekends and holidays, folks from Canberra would be making the trip through our town. Unfortunately, too many of them believed that the trip should take under 2 hours, regardless of circumstances, so many collisions with animals and also many head-ons. I think in some other Nordic countries, there is education about avoiding collisions with moose. I am not sure what the current situation but when I learned to drive, there was no mention of how to avoid collisions with animals and what to do if a collision is inevitable. Given that I think is was 48% of fatalities involving animals come from swerving it is clear that driver education is probably the change that would result in the biggest reduction to deaths, injuries and damage.

Yeah I get that; however, where I lived every night of the week, you could hear shooting and see spotlights. The high rate of collisions with kangaroos was in spite of heavy culling. Farmers cull to protect their livelihood.

Which means the rate payers. Most councils operate barely in the black and often in the red. Where would they get the money from? The answer is increasing rates.

Getting back to the original question, who should pay? I think the obvious answer is the motorist's insurance company or the motorist themselves if they choose to be uninsured. On the route I used to drive, the road was bordered by private properties. Any culling would surely not be the responsibility of the council but the landholders. I would suggest that most owners of farmland already cull, certainly our neighbours did regularly cull roos. I just read some interesting statistics. "Approximately 5% of fatal road accidents in Australia involve an animal, and a significant portion of these fatal accidents, around 42%, are caused by drivers swerving to avoid hitting the animal. While the overall percentage of accidents is low, swerving is a major cause of serious injury and death in those incidents". I don't think it is a problem that can be totally eliminated. Perhaps it could be part of driver education. It is just a part of living in Australia; elsewhere, it is moose or elk

Whilst science-based culling is fine, I think it won't totally eliminate the hazard. A lower population will improve the odds, but you only have to hit one to have a bad day. I saw a dead kangaroo on the Tullamarine freeway about 4 km from Melbourne airport. So yes, culling might help but you still have to drive as if one is going to hop across the road. I think driver education is also important. Many motorists think the 100k km/h speed sign is a minimum rather than a maximum IF conditions are favourable. As I said 21 years driving quite long distances through bush and farmland and 2 incidents which were not too serious because I was not driving fast. This can't simply be due to luck.

We lived near a country town, 100km east af Canberra, for 21 years, and we worked in Canberra. This meant driving into Canberra 5 times a week. The trip there was fine; however, the trip back was usually at a bad time for roos. During this time, we hit 1 roo bad enough to damage the car and 1 wombat (at low speed). On our way home, we would vary are speed according to the surroundings. Travelling the same road so often, you start to get a sense of where roos are likely to hop across the road. Likewise, the weather plays a part. Our tactic was to slow down (even to 60kph) in those places that tended to have a high body count. There were occasions where we had to take evasive action; however, this does require sound judgement, better to hit a roo than a tree or a car coming the other way. This particular highway was treacherous enough even without roos. This highway was noted for serious accidents and head-on collisions (Kings Highway) Why should the council (rate payers) be liable? I would hate to think how much the rates would need to increase to cover the numerous incidents. For once, GON I agree (with this statement at least) It is really up to the driver to drive to the conditions. Another hazard we experienced was heavy fog but we were often amazed at how some cars would come up close behind and then overtake and accelerate off into the unknown. I use a navigation app on my phone where you and other road users can report road hazards (with voice), then when other drivers approach the hazard, you get a voice warning. The most common warning (around here) is "vehicle on the shoulder of the road". You get about 500metres' notice, and as you pass, it asks if the hazard is still there. It does report animal hazards, including "dead animal on the road". It does depend on how many users of this app are in the area; it does tell you that, and it is often quite a large number. Other creatures I have had to avoid are cattle, horses, deer, and would you believe a totally naked man running down the middle of the road at St Kilda

When you say Gazans, do you mean Hamas or other terrorists or literally all Gazans? I doubt that the little girl in this video was guilty of anything. Of course, this round of barbarity started with an act of barbarity 2 years ago, and so on back to did dispossession of the Palestinians at the creation of the nation of Israel. The problem will never be solved until the root cause is addressed in a way that gives dignity a safety to both sides. The brutal death of a child is heartbreaking, whatever that childs that child's nationality or religion.

A few years ago I bought a smoke detector for my house. Smoke detectors are mandatory. The alarm has never saved me from a fire. I think I should be able to get a refund.

BS This is just in Victoria So in Victoria 2020-2023 there were 5617 serious injuries from crashes with 1079 of those being life-threatening plus around 300 deaths. This is where a lot of the CTP that I pay goes. If get hit by a drunk driver or perhaps an eldrly driver who makes a mistake I will be somewhat compensated. You seem not to care about these people. I dont know how to say this i a different way. If you never make a claim you are still getting a service. The service is indemnity from being sued for millions because you make a mistake. "CTP insurance covers vehicle owners and drivers if they hurt or fatally injure someone in a car accident. According to the TAC, the insurance will cover the owner and driver for any liability including large court payouts. The TAC says it pays an average of $170,000 for each road death and an average of $2.25 million for each serious injury (such as traumatic brain and spinal injuries)."

GON, you do use the service. As well as paying for those injured, your premium indemnifies you from being sued for injuring other road users and yourself. Your premium means you can drive around in reasonable confidence that you won't be sued for millions of dollars. A question GON if you were in charge, what would you do? Would you say "screw you" to the kid hit by a car or the driver who is hit by a drunk driver or just the driver who makes a mistake? You say CTP is mandatory; however, you are not compelled to drive a car. There are many areas in which the common good sometimes dictates legal compulsion. Many of us here fly or have flown in the past. Being grown-ups we understand that along with the freedom to fly comes responsibilities. Our aircaft must be maintained tp the prescribed standards. The safety of other air users and people on the ground is crucial. As grown-ups we understand that rights come with responsibilities. GON can you answer this question? If you got your wish an CTP was not mandatory, and you ran off the road and hit a pedestrian, would you pay for the (posibly lifetime) care of your victim? The average payout to a severely disabled victim? Also if a drunk driver ran into you and rendered you quadraplegic, would you be able to support yourself? There are all sorts of insurances that are not voluntary. A doctor needs to have indemnity insurance. Even as a private music teacher, I was required to have indemnity insurance. It is just part of being a grown-up and participating in society

GON, you don't seem to understand how insurance works. Money flows into an insurance fund, but it also flows out. Every year, people suffer catastrophic injuries on the road. We share the financial risk. If you got your money back because you never claimed, how would the insurance company pay out those who do have an accident? You do get something you get: Some financial indemnity should you have an accident that severely injures another road user. Insurance pays out for your mistake rather than you being sued into financial oblivion. A financial payout to cover medical expenses, etc, should you become a quadriplegic due to an accident that may be your fault or perhaps someone else's fault. Payouts also go to those good drivers who are injured by bad drivers. I presume you consider yourself to be a good driver. The money you have paid over the years into CTP helps to ensure that if you have an accident (whether your fault or someone else's) and you have life-changing injuries, there is money to support YOU. GON, this statement is so wrong. SAFE DRIVERS ARE ALSO INJURED ON THE ROAD. YOU COULD BE THE RECIPIENT ONE DAY. We could have no compulsory 3rd party injury insurance, but what would you do if you were rendered disabled by an uninsured driver and you required lifetime care? Unless we are prepared to let a severely disabled person crawl around their house trying to feed themselves, then someone has to pay something.

That is not how insurance works. I assume you are talking about 3rd party injury insurance? The premiums paid for insurance are enough to pay out for those injured, plus operating costs, plus a profit for the insurance company. The money you pay in premiums is at least partially expended on those who are injured on the road. If you are injured, you will benefit. If you accidentally injure someone on the road, the insurance should pay, instead of you being sued into oblivion for disabling another motorist or pedestrian. I have never had a car accident and injured someone, but being a rational person, I understand that the possibility exists, no matter how careful I am. I can't fathom what insurance has to do with voting. You really do seem to have a persecution complex. Ummm wouldn't remaining in the system entail being politically engaged? Which politicians? The politicians who conscripted you are long gone. I doubt you would find many politicians who are pro-conscription at this point. There may well be the odd right-wing politician who, every few years, bangs on about bringing back conscription, but I suspect society would not be up for it. Conscription ended 53 years ago. Perhaps it is time to somewhat let go of the past and concentrate on living a happy life. I know of a few people on this forum who were also conscripted, but they don't appear to let it define them or link everything bad in their lives to it.

On our morning walk, we had a close look at the Young Endeavour. We had a long chat with the Captain. The people in the rigging were doing an exercise where they practised rescuing someone injured in the rigging. The Captain told us all about the "Young Endeavour" program, where they take 24 young people between 16 and 24, and teach them all the skills required to sail this ship. We found this chat to be quite uplifting. Under the scheme, 24 to 30 "youth crew" (aged between 16 and 23) join a voyage to supplement the 9-10 naval personnel from the Mine Warfare, Hydrographic and Patrol Boat Force, which Young Endeavour is attached to.[2][3][6][7] Over 500 youth crew per year participate in the scheme, and are selected for the voyages by a biannual ballot.[6] Each voyage typically lasts ten to eleven days, during which the youth crew rotate through most roles aboard the ship, stand watches, and help with Young Endeavour's operation.[6] Near the end of the voyage, the crew undergoes "command day": a 24-hour period in which the ship is entirely under control of the youth crew.[5] As part of most voyages, the combined crew takes a group of special needs youth on a half-day sail.[6] Between the scheme's inception in 1988 and mid-2018, over 13,500 youth have participated in voyages, while another 11,500 special needs youth have been involved in half-day sails.[6] The vessel is at sea for approximately 240 days per year.[7]

Yeah, that was my initial concern. When I rang them up, they didn't seem surprised. Anyway, back in my name now.

I was a little surprised to receive this email from Vicroads this morning. Nice one Vicroads, since I have neither sold nor otherwise disposed of the car. My wife was out in the car at the time, so I did wonder if she had sold the car and done a runner! Anyway the fix is in the works.

I am in the lucky position of getting hand-me-downs from my father-in-law. Basically, whenever he upgrades, I get his old one, which is still pretty good. This does lead to some good-natured banter. I will often remind him that the new Pixel phone is out, and perhaps he should upgrade. If I had to, I probably would spend a reasonable (but not stupid) amount on a phone. The camera is quite important to me. I have been a keen photographer for many years, but these days, a good phone camera produces pictures as good as my trusty SLR and at a fraction of the weight. I do tend to use plenty of apps. Many of these apps save me money or time, and some are just interesting, such as star charts or bird/plant identification. When we see damaged infrastructure or vandalism or dumped rubbish or abandoned trollies etc, we use an app called Snap Send Solve, take a picture and you can at the touch of a button, have that info sent to the appropriate people. We have used this mainly for abandoned trolleys or dumped rubbish, and the problem was remedied quickly, and you get a report back. When it comes to my phone, that is the function I probably use the least.

In defence of iPhone (and I do not own one and have never owned one or have plans to be one), they are superior for the hearing impaired. My sister in law has had severe hearing loss for many years and really relies upon her iPhone and its interaction with her hearing aids. Whilst Android may be catching up, it is still behind. iPhones offer more advanced and integrated built-in hearing aid support than Android, including seamless integration with MFi-certified devices, features like Live Listen to turn the phone into a microphone, and upcoming software that allows AirPods to function as hearing aids with personalized settings. While Android devices have some hearing aid compatibility features, they generally require more setup via apps and lack the depth of system-level integration and features found on iOS.

Is this the sort of thing you approve of? This is one of many instances of thuggish brutality from these morons. I have no problem with deporting criminals, but that is not what is happening. There are plenty of examples, such as a New Zealand woman taken into custody or the Canadian woman. They should investigate people first and determine whether there is evidence of illegality, and then arrest, rather than arresting people, often with excessive force people merely because they look foreign.

I have been there. quite spectacular