octave

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?

Yep, and should be registered as a motorbike and require a licence and insurance in my view.. The vast majority of Ebikes and riders are safe and legal. I strongly support the law being applied. There are ebikes out there where it is difficult to tell which side of the law they are on, but the one above is quite clear.

It is interesting that mostly there are not loads of kids riding illegal motorbikes on the streets (although it does happen occasionally). I guess the thing with Ebikes is there is this slippery slope. If I can ride a 250-watt bike, then why not a 300-watt bike, which can easily lead to 750watts and more. I think these bigger bikes should be available, but on the same basis as a motorcycle, because that is what they are. A young person on a fast Ebike must be dealt with in the same manner as a young person riding a motorbike. Something that can travel at 100kph is a vehicle and should require a licence and rego. I also think that safety standards for some of these powerful bikes should be enforced.

I think these bikes (which are illegal) could probably be made legal with adequate regs, more like a motorbike. I believe at the moment 250watts is the limit for road use. I think that a bike that does 100 kp is a motor vehicle and should be regulated as such.

As a regular e-bike rider, I think there may be a case for sensible regulation. There are many e-bikes that are very fast and powerful, and at this stage, not even legal. I think there could be a use for these bikes, but we just have to work out a way of making them compatible with other traffic and pedestrians. Micro transport has many benefits for a city. The majority of bike riders, electric or not, are taking a vehicle off the road for that particular journey. When I ride to my local supermarket, which has limited parking, someone else can park in my car park. On a recent walk around Melbourne CBD, I noted how many delivery bikes were on the roads. Each one of these is likely displacing a car or motorcycle. There can be friction between the different travellers, but we just need to work out sensible rules to coexist. I regularly ride on Rail Trails, which are shared between bikes, walkers and sometimes horses; it seems to work well. E-bikes are a relatively new technology. We need to sensibly work out how to use them and not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and we definitely don't want to turn it into a culture war.

Sure, I am all for smaller parties playing a bigger part, but they may not be to your particular taste. There are as many left-wing parties as right-wing. Look, as I said, I am not against the NZ system; in fact, I quite like it, but you did rather cherry-pick what I posted. There are downsides as well, such as stability. Either way the conservatives lost. SA is quite a progressive state. I grew up there and visit there regularly and have many friends

I find the voting system in NZ quite appealing, but it's not some brilliant solution to the perceived failings of our system of democracy. My son lives in NZ and is now a citizen. We regularly talk about politics and the thing that occurs to me is that although they have multi-member electorates and we have the preferential system, these two countries are pretty similar. When I am on my yearly visit to NZ, I do not notice a huge difference. I can even sometimes forget which country I am in. If you are unhappy now, then changing the system won't cure you.

I wouldn't, which is not necessarily a plus. We built our own house in 1990, and when we sold it, we were forced to install architraves and skirting boards and even get a completion certificate from the council so that we could sell it. I have that combination of the drive to do everything myself and a wonderful ability to complete 85% of the job.

I cant say I knew exactly how it works. My son lives in NZ and has explained it to me many times, although I often don't retain the information. Here is an abbreviated description of the differences between NZ and Aus. It does seem to me that each system has its pros and cons. 🗳️ The big picture Australia → uses preferential voting in single-member electorates (plus proportional voting for the Senate) New Zealand → uses a mixed-member proportional system (MMP) That one difference changes a lot about how governments are formed. 🇦🇺 Australia’s system Australia has two houses: House of Representatives (lower house) Uses preferential voting (also called instant runoff) You vote for candidates in your local electorate If no one gets 50%, preferences are redistributed until someone does Outcome: each electorate elects one MP, and the party with the majority forms government 👉 This tends to favour major parties like Australian Labor Party and Liberal Party of Australia Senate (upper house) Uses proportional representation (Single Transferable Vote) Each state elects multiple senators Smaller parties have a better chance here 🇳🇿 New Zealand’s system New Zealand uses MMP (Mixed-Member Proportional) Each voter gets two votes: 1. Electorate vote Like Australia: vote for a local MP 2. Party vote (this is the key one) Determines the overall proportion of seats in Parliament How seats are allocated Parliament has ~120 seats Some are electorate MPs The rest are “list MPs” added to make each party’s total match their share of the party vote 👉 Example: If a party gets 30% of the vote → they should have ~30% of seats If they win fewer electorates, they get extra list MPs to make up the difference ⚖️ Key differences that matter 1. Proportionality NZ: Highly proportional—parliament reflects the vote closely Australia: Less proportional—especially in the House of Representatives 2. Governments NZ: Coalition governments are the norm e.g. New Zealand Labour Party often governs with partners like New Zealand Green Party Australia: Usually majority single-party governments (or stable coalitions like Liberal–National) 3. Power of smaller parties NZ: Smaller parties often hold real power (kingmakers) Australia: Smaller parties matter more in the Senate than in the House 4. Voting experience NZ: Two votes (local MP + party) Australia: Rank candidates in order of preference (House), and more complex ballot for Senate 5. Strategic effects NZ: Encourages voting for the party you actually like (less “wasted vote”) Australia: Preferences help, but major parties still dominate outcomes 🧠 Simple way to think about it Australia: “Who wins each seat?” → determines government New Zealand: “What share of votes did each party get?” → determines government

I won't speak for Litey, and I probably wouldn't have used the "foolish" word, but my beef is not with the idea of proportional representation. I think it is probably a good idea. I think that the notion that only votes that put a member in parliament are useful votes, and all others are a waste of time. This seems like a naive understanding of how things work. i seldom vote for one of the 2 major parties. I usually vote for a minor party that could never win. Is this a wasted vote? No, because my preferences go to the least worst party. My electorate is a safe Labor seat; however, parties are strongly attuned to swings against them. If a smaller party on the left gets many first preferences and the Labor party gets by on second preferences, they are liable to want to adjust their policies the next time to turn those second preferences into primary votes, and the same applies on the right. I do believe it would have been better if a stronger opposition had been elected; however, the voters by and large, understand the system as it is and voted accordingly.

All votes will have a value? You seem to only believe a vote has value if it results in a seat. If a candidate got 1 vote does that mean they are elected or should that vote not have any value? I imagine we would not be having this conversation if the situation were reversed and One Nation were elected and Labor only got a few seats

Nope. To put it more clearly the Libs if they are not to become totally irrelevant must shift in order to win back those who moves to One Nation. Thus will most likely result in the Libs adopting One Nation policies. In effect a centre right party is likely to move more to the right. Likewise if Labor were to lose a high number of votes to the Greens you can bet that they will nudge a little to the left. This is how even votes that don't result in a win still have some effect in the political discourse This is not some crazy idea I just pulled out of my a$$, it is a well understood phenomina.

Not everyone's vote will or can result in a win. About half the population will always be disappointed. Anyway you look at this election the conservatives lost. I do not see a vote that doesn't result in a seat in parliament as being wasted. The Libs will be analysing the results in order to do better next time. I would not be surprised if the Libs move towards the right in order to get back their voters who have gone towards the right and voted One Nation. After an election all parties sniff the wind to decide where they lost votes and what they need to do to get them back. There is a concept called the "Overton Window" which is useful to understand. Even votes that don't win a seat can shift the political discourse.

I am actually in Vic, just used a quick example of a pollie that I would put last. Yes in the House of Reps. In the Senate, you can vote above the line (for grouped candidates) or number every candidate

Just another thing that makes me feel better is in the case of this guy The South Australian Liberal party is standing by an election candidate who said same-sex marriage is not real, homosexuality can open up “demonic realms” and gender transitioning is an “illusion”. I don't want to merely punish (if I lived in his electorate) with 0 vote, I want to vote strategically against him. I always vote strategically and number every square. For many years, I lived in Eden-Monaro, a so-called bellwether seat. This meant the winner of the seat was always (mostly) from the party that won the government. This seat was sometimes pivotal, so it did really matter.