Jump to content

The Sunshine State


Yenn
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am trying to work out if the Qld government is corrupt or incompetent.

 

Today it was announced that the government has gone past the date for its negotiations with the Adani Mine on royalties.

 

They gave approval for the mine just after the federal election. Now it appears they have not even worked out if they are going to charge royalties or not, nor how much they will or will not be.

 

It seems to me that our government is giving away what we own, and also letting the mines have free water, plus they will be providing the infrastructure. All, the Government gets out of it is the royalties and the ability to say they are growing the  job market.

 

Please tell me that the other states are not so stupid.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wonder if the mine will ever go into production ( should be called extraction ). 

 

The kids protests are demonstrating that law-abiding protests are not effective and I suspect that the mine will not be so profitable that it can afford much disruption.

 

But that is still a horrifying bit of news, if it really means that the qld govt gets no royalties.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QLD (and WA) are why we have this pathetic LNP government.

 

Scomo is a national embarrassment, toadying to Trump like a true brown-noser while ignoring the climate change elephant in the room.

 

He even came close to saying "fake news" about anyone who denigrates Australia's carbon reduction efforts.  No wonder kids are totally over politicians.  I just hope all those angry 16 year olds vote as soon as they hit 18.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Sco Mo believes we are in the end days and dog is controlling everything ( except plastic in the oceans apparently). and kids should be seen and not heard. Now he's dobbed Downer in. Couldn't happen to nicer people. Hockey set it up.  With the Donald, do deals at your own risk. and his handshake isn't worth the paper it's written on. . Expert Humper and dumper. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyndon B Johnston was at least able to apply some ethics, consistency and reason to his tenure. It's unfair to compare almost anyone to Trump. He's a stand out special (whatever he is, but it looks pretty FAKE if EVERYTHING ELSE has to be FAKE for him to look OK)..  Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I wasn't having a go at LBJ, just our PM appearing to grovel to him.

 

Johnson was far from perfect and his tenure is forever blighted by the Vietnem disaster he inherited, but he should be remembered as a great reformer: a Texan who worked to improve the lot of black Americans. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its time for a "dereliction of public duty" offence where, if someone in a controlling position in government makes such an incompetent or advertently bad decision such that there were no other plausible outcome apart from one that doesn't provide benefit; or one that disadvantages the community, then those responsible are immediately expelled from parliament and surrender every right and benefit (e.g. pension, etc) related to their parliamentary position (Maybe with the exception of security as they will need it). Once they stand a chance to really be held accuontable for their decisions or watch, things will change pretty quickly. At the moment, they can leave in disgraced complete with their ill-gotten gains.. What incentive is that to do the best by the community.

 

Of course, there is a bit of work to do to ensure that it is an objective and stated measure (e.g. if a platform/manifesto is to do something stupid and people still elect them, well, they would be held in dereliction if they did not do it (or those willfully blocking it would be held liable under the same law). A defence would be where they have fully and publicly declared the reasonably foreseeable outcomes or lack thereof.. if the public acquiesces, well that would then be OK. Imagine if the QLD gov't declared they were giving permission, subsidising everything (i.e. providing an investment in the project) and not taking a return.. Maybe public opinion, apart from those set to immediately profit from the mine, would have been different.. or at least more intense.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its time for a "dereliction of public duty" offence where, if someone in a controlling position in government makes such an incompetent or advertently bad decision such that there were no other plausible outcome apart from one that doesn't provide benefit; or one that disadvantages the community,

 

If you are looking to shoot a "dereliction of duty" at a Minister of the Crown, then the guilty parties might well include the Public Servants who drafted the advice and recommendations on which the Minister signed off on a deal. To be fair to Ministers, not one of them would have the prior knowledge and experience to know the ins and outs of every process falling under their ministry's scope.  How can they when very few parliamentarians remain in the same ministry post for very long. They get shuffled around more than a Queen in Old Maid.

 

They must rely on training and experience of the Public Service to sort the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately, now that most government works are tendered to the private sector, the expertise of the Public Service is draining away. We are also losing to retirement those who started their careers as cadets and worked their way through to the higher echelons. 

 

So if a Minister causes a major fluck up, then, although the responsibility for ministry decisions is the Minister's, those who provided poor advice should suffer the "cat". All bets are off if the Minister can be proved to have had a snout in the trough.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, I would expect the minister to fully avail themselves of all the consequences of their decision through various sources (I don't rely soloely on my staff to tell me what is going on or what the ramifications are).. That is why they are paid the big bucks - allegedly why... In addition, they hold themselves out as being competent to take on that responsibility - if they turn out not to be, then they can't expect to take all the spoils that comes with it.

 

Also, I am not talking about every day stuff ups.. When I said, " makes such an incompetent or advertently bad decision such that there were no other plausible outcome apart from one that doesn't provide benefit; or one that disadvantages the community" I meant seriously incompetent such that, with a modicum of assessing what was happening, the poor outcome is as plain as the nose on their face...  And they have not publicly declared the issue...

 

Not including royalties or at least addressing them in some form (e.g. they will be decided at a future date based in some objective criteria that would contrain negoitations rather than challenge the legality of post-approval imposition) would fall into that basket.. It is well known and ought to be in the competence on any minister who is in charge, no matter how short of period of time they were in charge for, that the reveue offices of the respective level of government typically receive compensation in the form of royalties from moning activity... However, if for example, Adani agreed to some other form of minimum participation - e.g. minimum number of jobs, or funding of local community facilities, etc. well, that would be mitigating dependent on the quantum of the contribution from Adani v the expected gross royalties expected...

 

I am being hypothetical in terms of Adani as I don't know the ins and outs of their deal, but as a general principle, it would seem not an affront to have such a law... The definition of such a law has to be tight enough to not allow it to creep into every day stuff ups...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" I just hope all those angry 16 year olds vote as soon as they hit 18."

 

With all that schooling, they should be Running this country, One year after their vote.

 

Bad decisions, LIKE that LNG to China, Who got a back-hand for that, we should have used it for OUR transport !.

 

Broken promises EVERY election !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

 

 

  •  
     

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest today. The Qld government passed a law some time ago, banning political donations from land developers. Money donated had to be handed back, then they did an audit and found some had not been returned. What do they do? With great fanfare they made the recipients hand back the money to the developers. As I see it the politicians have been bought and the developer has got his money back. Who wins? The developer of course.

 

The donation of money to a politician or political party is only done for one or two reasons.

 

1 The person donating thinks the pollies are doing  a wonderful job and he wants to help them.

 

2 The person donating wants to influence the politician to get an advantage.

 

I tend to think No 2 is the most likely scenario. How to fix it. We should ban all donations or make all donations go into a fund and have no record of who donated to any politician. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said, just prior to the 2013 election that Aussies see things in mirror image. The economy had been performing very well under Swanny (he had been nominated by OECD as best in the world). No worries, we just tossed that lot out and installed a trained chimp with cigar smokin' Joe and that's fixed that!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that educated Chinese don't think we have a democracy here in Australia for exactly that reason. Political " donations ".

 

But I like Yenn's idea as a way of allowing donations  as long as there is no way that the recipient could know from where the money came. It would have to be pooled and handed out to all pollies. I bet donations would dry up.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that educated Chinese don't think we have a democracy here in Australia...

 

Depends what we mean by "educated" and "democracy".

 

As our man in China used to tell us, China can claim to be democratic, because all party members can vote.

 

America claims to be a democracy, but it's normally only the very rich and influential who get elected.

 

Australia is run by whichever party has the support of the Murdoch press.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Today we hear that the Qld Government has extinguished Native title over the Adani coalmine site. It seems they did it in a sly ay without telling the native title holders. Two of the them were taken to court for trespassing. It amazes me how governments can behave so badly.

 

Of course they are only following in the footsteps of the Feds. They spend multi millions on updating Christmas Island and employ 100 people, just to incarcerate a family of four Sri Lankans.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...