Jump to content

What price our "democracy"? $$$


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Yenn said:

I heard today that the legislation was not passed. maybe sanity prevailed.

They withdrew it for further consultation and debate at a later date. The legislation was a Crime and Corruption Commission recommendation, and the government thought they were doing the right thing by introducing it. The CCC was concerned that people could make allegations during an election campaign that would influence the vote count for the person who was the subject of the allegations. In other words, false allegations to stop someone getting elected.

 

The critics pointed out that journalists would be penalized for reporting, and that politicians making allegations against their opposition would not be. Also the lack of debate on the bill was an issue.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I was going to start a new thread on examples where we were  undemocratic, but the topic fits ok here... here's my list: 1. The lack of deposit legislation... Most people don't want to live

Searching through the old memory bank, I reckon that bit about educated Chinese doubting that we were democratic came from a video about how the system worked in China. Sure, there is only the one par

Bruce, I like your list. It would be a great starting point for any political party to make a six point policy platform like that.   The old adage 'make your goals simple but achievable' wou

Posted Images

I was going to start a new thread on examples where we were  undemocratic, but the topic fits ok here...

here's my list:

1. The lack of deposit legislation... Most people don't want to live surrounded by rubbish, and deposits are known to be effective. But even where they have been in for years, like in SA, they are too little and on too few things. Most other places are worse.

2. Quarantine in CBD's. In the olden days, they knew to put quarantine places on islands etc.

3. Insane population growth. We will outgrow our food supply the way we are headed.

4. Insane imprisonment policies...  we are locking up too many people who are not dangerous. And some who are dangerous are prowling the streets.

5. Homeless: I find it completely unacceptable that there are any in Australia, well at least non-addicts.

6. Drugs...  the current policy seems designed for harm maximization. There are countries doing it way better.

 

My contention is that these things would be changed by a free vote but we are not being given the chance. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Most people don't want to live surrounded by rubbish,

I agree with that, but in my opinion the amount of litter in the public places nowadays is vastly less than what it was when I was a kid. Without the benefit of Bruce's post here,  I actually noticed the lack of litter in the streets a few weeks ago. 

 

When I was a kid, it was said that country roads did not need cats' eyes on posts to mark the edges at night because there were plenty of beer bottles there to do the job. Now we really do need the cats' eyes because there are no bottles. There is more untidiness in city streets from bird droppings or the aftermath of raids by Bin Chickens, egrets. It would seem that the "Do the right thing" campaign has been successful in changing community attitudes. Don't you cringe when you see some yobbo toss food wrappings or drink containers on the ground?

 

As for deposits on drink containers, they are a real benefit. While I don't go out actively collecting bottles and cans, I get a return by putting the drink containers from home in the pay-back machines rather than straight into my Council supplied recycling bin.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago, as you got closer to an aboriginal settlement,  the roadside bottles became overwhelming. I think this is why the NT finally followed SA with deposits. But the amount has not been increased for too many years. I would like 20 cents.

These days, litter is more of the cardboard food-container sort. Iced coffee cartons for example.   I would like to see at least a 20 cent deposit on these too.

 

Edited by Bruce Tuncks
typo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce, I like your list. It would be a great starting point for any political party to make a six point policy platform like that.

 

The old adage 'make your goals simple but achievable' would help voters judge the actual performance of elected members.

 

Not ignoring the big ticket items such as reducing dirty fossil fuel use, or limiting foreign interferance, which still must be addressed but we need to keep the message down to less than an A4 page or the punters won't get around to reading it.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The comment about litter at aboriginal settlements reminds me of two things. They have chain link fences around some of those missions and their use is obvious. All the rubbish is blown into the fence and cannot get out int tjr rest of the country.

The ABC asked u to guess which place in Qld  was first to achieve a million returned cans and bottles, when a deposit was returnable on them. I guessed Woorabinda, but was wrong, it was actually Biloela. Obviously no return depot at Woorabinda. I went to one mission in Far N Qld and down at the beach there was several hundred metres of cans at the high tide mark. I wonder if they were picked up and returned.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Yenn said:

The comment about litter at aboriginal settlements reminds me of two things. They have chain link fences around some of those missions and their use is obvious. All the rubbish is blown into the fence and cannot get out int tjr rest of the country.

The fences certainly do a lot to contain it. I won't mention the name, but we once did a contract for Central Petroleum on one of the settlements west of Alice, out near the W.A. border. The house fences had light wind blown rubbish three quarters of the way up the height of the fence.

 

Apologies for thread drift, but it reminds me of a workmate years ago who was of the practical joking, betting type who was often posing riddles for people to solve. We were working in the Lake Frome area; very windy at the time with constant roly polys blowing along the ground. He hit me with the question of where do they go, which had me thinking for a couple of days. Finally, he pointed out that they blow up against fences and get stuck there. Over time the sand gets caught there by the mass of roly polys and covers up the fence. The station people then build a new fence on top of the other one and the whole process starts again.

 

In that country you can see fencelines several metres above normal ground level. Some are on at least their third fence.

Edited by willedoo
  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Yenn said:

The comment about litter at aboriginal settlements reminds me of two things...

Sad to say, during five decades visiting Aboriginal settlements and teaching their kids, it has been my experience that only a few of them seemed to care about rubbish or the appearance of their communities.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the Aboriginals care not a whit about picking up rubbish is twofold.

 

1. They produced practically no rubbish in their original native culture and existence. What rubbish they did produce was natural, organic products, such as bark, leaves and other plant matter, which rapidly decomposed. They do not have any ingrained "tidiness" in their thought patterns.

 

2. They believe that all the current rubbish they leave lying around is "white mans rubbish". White man produced it, so it's white mans responsibility to pick it up.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did Bruce's simple statement "Most people don't want to live surrounded by rubbish " suddenly start people putting down Aboriginals? Call me an isolated suburbanite from the settled east coast, but I don't encounter any aboriginal settlements around my way. The closest to what others have hinted at that I encounter are public housing estates where the majority are unemployed Whites. However, my comments about the reduction in roadside litter are still valid where I go.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, old man emu said:

Why did Bruce's simple statement "Most people don't want to live surrounded by rubbish " suddenly start people putting down Aboriginals? Call me an isolated suburbanite from the settled east coast, but I don't encounter any aboriginal settlements around my way. The closest to what others have hinted at that I encounter are public housing estates where the majority are unemployed Whites. However, my comments about the reduction in roadside litter are still valid where I go.

ome, I've read back through the previous posts and can't see any putting down Aboriginals. Some realistic observations were expressed about rubbish levels, but I can't see any put downs among them. Could you let us know which comments you consider to be putting Aboriginals down. Just curious, that's all.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely no actual words written, but put down by implication. I was reacting to the highlighting of one group. As I said, my experiences have been in public housing estates in Sydney. We could highlight that group just as readily.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ome, you possibly might be reading too much into it. I can't speak for others, but I don't see any put downs in the previous posts, real or implied. No one is saying Aboriginal people in communities are either good or bad for having rubbish about the place, just that they do.

 

One point I'd like to make is that the concept of a rubbish problem is in the mind of the white man only. To remote Aboriginals it's not a problem. They don't even think of it as rubbish; to them it's just stuff that's there like all the other stuff. It's only us who sort stuff into good stuff and bad stuff. It's a cultural thing exactly as onetrack said. Where we run into trouble is when we try to project our way of thinking and logic onto them; it just doesn't work that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No aborigines near where I live, but there is litter which consists of bottles and cans, plus iced coffee cartons and fast food packages.  I pick a fair bit up myself when walking the dog. ( Once picked up, it doesn't need picking up again ) The deposit on the bottles and cans is not enough for me to bother with it, so I just put the stuff in the bin when I come home.

I would love to see deposits bigger and on more things.

But here's another lack of democracy...   euthanasia. With safeguards, this is supported by a large majority but opposed by loud sectional interests.  Alas, the pollies will not put the question to a plebiscite.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

AUSTRIA tried it & look what happened there !.

Supposedly, safeguards were there too.

BUT

Unscrupulous doctors, did what they could, to pass the inheritance to the younger wealthier people. !

And get their Backhand too.

IN Old England  ( a couple of generations ago ) One doctor, a policeman, or JP. could AND did have Sane people committed to the Asylum.

Never to be released on their own.

they could get married & be under the Husband's protection, with a lot of help !.

I WAS ASKED TO TAKE RESPONSERBILITY FOR AN AUNT, AS SOON AS I GOT MARRIED !.

She had an Epileptic fit, as a teenager ( at school ). And I was shocked at the storey, & far too young to take on that burden, She met a man & got Married. 

 

spacesailor

 

Edited by spacesailor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Plebiscite - oh gawd not that again.

 

Used by Tony Abbott as an excuse to kick the can of gay marriage a little further down the road.

The parliament knew the will of the people already but played silly buggers to delay it as much as they could, and when they finally asked for the public's opinion under Turnbull, surprise surprise, they got the same answer.

I think that they're there to represent us.  Not represent one small part of their electorate but the majority of people in their electorate.  I can't believe that the majority of people of Dawson (Mackay, Townsville, Ayr, Bowen and Proserpine) are mostly far-right gun nuts who reject science and fall for conspiracy theories, but for some reason the person they've elected to represent them since 2010 is exactly like that.

Which presents a problem.  If none of the people (from any party) up for election represent the views of a majority of the electorate, then how do you get fair representation?

I think it's up to the political parties to improve their selection process.  Surely it can't be that hard to have a researcher go through the social media history of people standing for preselection (employers do it all the time).  Hmmm... Rabid NRA supporter...  says gays are going to hell... doesn't think the holocaust happened....  believes that immunisation is wrong... Might be some problems with this one down the track, let's drop them now.

Let's face it, if people want to vote for nutters there's plenty out there with their own parties, Pauline/Clive/Katter to name a few.  The major parties should clean house and field non-nutters only.

Edited by Marty_d
  • Like 1
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said spacy, I do like the colorful way you express things. But the pendulum can go too far the other way. The result being that insane people are free to roam the streets. 

We have had too many instances where this has led to tragedy.

There was an American retired judge in SA who studied the matter and said how we were locking up the wrong people. She said that we should restrict locking people up to those who are a danger if not locked up.

I was at that time a mate of the local member who was the minister for prisons etc at the time, so I put this to him.  His reply was that they ( the cabinet ) all knew this but they wanted to stay in power so they had to do the present policy.

I was too slow to ask him why democracy worked in this nasty way but not in smarter ways.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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

×
×
  • Create New...