The ALP's Beds Are Burning

[Ripper]

Originally posted by Mark Perica
Ripper 76 it is pellucid to me that you have not read the Mabo decision and have no idea the form of property rights that are recognised by native title - in there nature they are not exclusive. The idea that succesful claimants can charge rents is utterly ridiculous and baseless in law. For God's sake read the primary text and not the drivel put about by the Liberal Party and shock jocks such as Howard Sattler

By they way the Treaty of Waitungi does not entitle Maoris to charge rent - so get for facts straight

Having a lot more contact with the real world effects of that decision than most I can confidently predict (bookmark this thread) that this is where things are heading. We have already seen this (in a defacto form) with exploration and mining and we are about to see it with regards to pastoral leases.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Pastoral leases are the weakest form of property rights and the current High Court have said that they extinguish native title - so why the scare mongering!!!!

As I have said the Treaty of Waitungi has been in existence for 100 years and has not lead to rents being charged over Maori Land

The various treaties entered into between the indian nations and the American Government did not lead them to charge rents

The closest analogy is the recent treaty entered into between the Canadin Federal Government and the Innuit People - they have obtained hunting and fishing rights which (as with Native Title) are not exclusive and have not lead to the charging of rents

So this bullskit argument that a treaty will mean black fellas will be charging s for hanging out the washing on the Hills Hoist is nothing more than hysterical scare mongering

 

[Contra Mundum]

Also Ripper you overestimate the cajones of the Labor Party - the do not have the balls to sign a treaty - Hawke proved it before and nothing has changed

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by Mark Perica
Pastoral leases are the weakest form of property rights and the current High Court have said that they extinguish native title - so why the scare mongering!!!!

As I have said the Treaty of Waitungi has been in existence for 100 years and has not lead to rents being charged over Maori Land

The various treaties entered into between the indian nations and the American Government did not lead them to charge rents

The closest analogy is the recent treaty entered into between the Canadin Federal Government and the Innuit People - they have obtained hunting and fishing rights which (as with Native Title) are not exclusive and have not lead to the charging of rents

So this bullskit argument that a treaty will mean black fellas will be charging s for hanging out the washing on the Hills Hoist is nothing more than hysterical scare mongering

No it may not apply ATM to the hills hoist but anyone who wants to mine has to "settle" with the local indigineous population who have not shown any interest until the Mabo decision. This immediately cuts any small prospector who relied on "finding a small patch" out of the equation as it is out of their budget to get a native title clearance on land that in many cases the locals have had no interest in.

The PGA are having ongoing dialogue trying to clarify their position after being assured that it would not affect them. There have already been ambit claims in the Perth Metropolitan Area even.

Don't bull**** to me about what the decision says, we all know that the law is an ass.

 

[Contra Mundum]

OK ripper I will differ to your supreme understanding of common sense and we will forget

1. What the Native Title decisions actually say.

2. The working of treaties in similar circumstances in other Nations

Anyway it is different in WA because during the Burke era pastoral leases were expressly subject to hunting and fishing right obligations.

As I have said it is all academic because Labor will never ever sign a treaty - why would they do it now?

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by Mark Perica
OK ripper I will differ to your supreme understanding of common sense and we will forget

1. What the Native Title decisions actually say.

What they say and what turns out in prctise are often completely different "outcomes"

2. The working of treaties in similar circumstances in other Nations

That has not much to do with our situation. The act is that loose that PPL have successfully applied and received native title rights over land that their ancestors (the indigineous ones) originated 600km from.

Anyway it is different in WA because during the Burke era pastoral leases were expressly subject to hunting and fishing right obligations.

As I have said it is all academic because Labor will never ever sign a treaty - why would they do it now?

That may be so but now the indiginous PPL are now running around on pastoral leases with Firearms and telling the pastoralists that they "Own" the land and will do what they want (what is a sheep or cow or three?).

The whole episode far from promoting reconciliation has done the opposite.

 

[The invisible mullet]

Originally posted by Goldenblue
I don't know why so many are comparing this to Kernot. Kernot joined the party mainly because she was having an affair with Evans. Secondly, she wept and moaned when she thought she was about to be tossed out because the ALP did not give her a safe seat. She won it anyway, but still moaned about it.

There are many differences between picking Kernot and picking Garrett. Garrett is not having an affair or dumping a party that supported him. Garrett has been asked to join the ALP as he has credentials to be an enviroment minister and MAY do a good job if elected. I understand some elements of the ALP are upset at the decision, but I always understood you chose the right man for the right job, (for enviro) not who was next in line.

It is interesting how this may turn out. I can see pros and cons, but there will be some bitter and twisted people over this decision and I see a lot more coming from this episode.

Just have to wait and see I think.

You've nailed it I think. I admit to being sceptical but was impressed with the way he handled himself on the 7.30 Report. Came across as an articulate, thoughtful and sensible bloke who thinks he has a great opportunity to make a contribution to public life. Don't know how he went
on the Ray Martin half hour.

 

[The invisible mullet]

Originally posted by slyolddog
Why would the 25-35 year olds care about a 51 year old washed up 80's rocker?

99% of Oils fans would be in the 35-40 plus age bracket now

youth & charisma? ..... from a man who is older than even Latham and Costello

Garrett has buckets of charisma whether you like it or not. Charisma isn't age related.

You forgot to note one of Turnbull's other great achievements - losing the republic referendum.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by The invisible mullet
Garrett has buckets of charisma whether you like it or not. Charisma isn't age related.

Have to agree that he is charismatic, but have to question (and this applies to 80% of pollies) whether he has any "real world" experience. Going from some of his previous outbursts, although his heart is probably in the right place he is quite naive about the real world.

 

[The invisible mullet]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
Have to agree that he is charismatic, but have to question (and this applies to 80% of pollies) whether he has any "real world" experience. Going from some of his previous outbursts, although his heart is probably in the right place he is quite naive about the real world.

That's an interesting point - what is "real world" experience though? I would have thought dealing with corporates and the hard grind of independent music is real experience as is his experience with the ACF whether you agree with their approach to politics (I've always thought that they are the sensible end of the green movement).

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by The invisible mullet
That's an interesting point - what is "real world" experience though? I would have thought dealing with corporates and the hard grind of independent music is real experience as is his experience with the ACF whether you agree with their approach to politics (I've always thought that they are the sensible end of the green movement).

The green movement are idealistic & hypocritical.

Dam the franklin, no way it will destroy the enviroment. Lets just import coal for electricity and produce more greenhouse gases.

Save the old growth forests! No more controled burns!

With the increase in fuel they burn down anyway and you never see a tree hugger trying to fight the fires.

 

[MrMeaner]

Originally posted by Tim56
University qualifications demonstrate that a person has both intelligence and application. Leading a lobby group demonstrates neither.

It's funny how you consider those who support government mouthpieces, but by your standard you are just a mouthpiece for the left. You, and your colleagues, just use half baked insults as a cover for your lack of argument and intelligence.

Mate, by your measure, I am extremely intelligent and capable of leading this country.

I often disagree with what my party does (I am a fully paid up member, so that dissent is expressed within party structures). My point about you being a mere mouthpiece was based on the observation that you tend to see things in black and white (ie Liberal = good; Labor = bad).

 

[whythelongface]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46


With the increase in fuel they burn down anyway and you never see a tree hugger trying to fight the fires.

Is that right. So you know every single person that has actually fought fires and you know that they are not a member/ supporter of the Greens.

If you have a point to say make sure you back it up with some figures rather than bluffing your way though an argument.

 

[afc9798]

Originally posted by Tim56
Despite the decline in standards of universities, a degree still guarantees some knowledge in a particular field. A PhD most certainly requires research. To come up with good ideas, you generally need a foundation of knowledge to build on. Practical experience in the world is more important however.



Certainly people do become successful without a university education. If the ALP were to put up Gerry Harvey or D.ck Smith that would be fine. The point is they are putting Peter Garrett not any of the people you listed. Do you think that people who do not go to university are less likely to be intelligent? And are you arguing that David Kemp and Malcolm Turnbull are unintelligent, and less qualified than Peter Garrett?



Howard was a solicitor before he became a politician, Costello was an outstanding barrister. I believe they do hold some economics qualification, but from their results, they know how to run an economy. You like to try and distort arguments, contending that I stated university qualifications were the only measure of intelligence and application. I said no such thing. The truth is, however you look at it, that Malcolm Turnbull and David Kemp are far better qualified than he is, and that is the case with the parties as a whole, as the ALP system generally puts up party hacks.



Yes, there are several things which I disagree with, specifically high taxing high spending. But more on that when I get back from dinner.

Tim, I haven't distorted anything. It's your generalisations that do that for you. let me respond while you dine.

1. You have just acknowledged that practical experience in the world is more important than a degree. Garrett has loads of world experience and I would suggest far more than JWH. What world experience did he have before entering politics? Very little other than a short stint as a suburban solicitor. I accept that JWH would now have a lot of knowledge, but what he doesn't possess is real world experience. In the real world you have to rely on your wits and you don't have a team of advisers telling you what to do and think.

2. David Kemp is the most uninspiring politician I have ever seen or heard. He is an academic who is there purely to appease the likes of you who are impressed by academic qualifications. Malcolm Turnbull is old money Liberal blueblood who has had the foundations laid for him from the day he was born. This does not make him unintelligent, but it sure as hell means he is detached from the real world. This is the same guy that couldn't even bring together the republican movement, let alone anything else. Merchant banking and defending spies is a far different proposition to getting your hands dirty.

3. You say that the party generally puts up party hacks, yet when they recruit a person who is passionate about the environment, aboriginal rights and has demonstrated the ability to put forward solutions, you criticise the ALP. Should they be recruiting more folk like Alexander Downer? The Labor model is not perfect by any stretch, but neither is a system that has produced the likes of Downer, Bishop, Kemp, Crichton-Brown, Tuckey, Reith, Alston and turned good people with good values such as Ruddock and Costello into heartless machines that put the interests of corporations above that of the people of Australia.

 

[MrMeaner]

FWIW I think that Turnbull will make a good parliamentarian.

Petrou Georgiou is also a very impressive figure. Unfortunately, he is a wet in a dry government and is thus marginalised.

The Kemps on the other hand simply rode the Costello/Kroger bandwagon into parliament and (I have to agree with afc9798 here) have been severly uninspiring since. Frankly, since they are very 'dry' politicians, I'm glad that they have been uninspiring.

Tim56, once you are able to stop yourself from unquestioningly parroting the Libs and praise the ALP (or, god forbid, the Greens) for something, I will stop thinking of you as a mere mouthpiece.

 

[desie]

Originally posted by MrMeaner
The Kemps on the other hand simply rode the Costello/Kroger bandwagon into parliament and (I have to agree with afc9798 here) have been severly uninspiring since. Frankly, since they are very 'dry' politicians, I'm glad that they have been uninspiring.

Agree with this, the Kemp boys are no doubt smart cookies but as pollies they are average, uninspiring performers at best. I would have thought there were a few on the backbench that could make a greater impression given the chance in a portfolio.

 

[desie]

Originally posted by Weaver
There are a couple of big fears amongst the ALP number crunchers.

1. Inner-city marginals may be lost on preferences if there is a strong Green vote. With the Dems a joke, the Greens could well poll 10% and that could be enough for the Libs to hold or win them. Garrett will go along way to cutting the legs from under the Greens and keeping some of the 'green / anti-war' vote in the ALP. The line will be that Greens who want to get things done, vote ALP, Greens that want to make noise vote Green.

I know what you're trying to say Weaver but I'm not sure it's a valid argument. There's no doubt that the Green vote in many of the inner city electorates will run at well over 10%. There may be a small swing in the primary vote in some of these seats to the ALP from the Greens due to the "Garrett factor", however, with a preference flow of about 85:15 to the Labor Party (82:18 in 2001) it's fair to say that the overwhelming majority of Greens votes flow through to the ALP in any case.

Subsequently, I can't see this having a negative effect on the ALP's 2pp vote in these seats.

What is interesting is that One Nation primaries tend to flow 50:50 between the major parties. I would have thought they would have flowed far more strongly to the Coalition. The fact that the preferences of pretty much all the minor parties flow strongly to Labor explain why the Coalition need close to 45% of the primary vote to win the election, still a tough ask I reckon.

 

[Tim56]

1. You have just acknowledged that practical experience in the world is more important than a degree. Garrett has loads of world experience and I would suggest far more than JWH. What world experience did he have before entering politics? Very little other than a short stint as a suburban solicitor. I accept that JWH would now have a lot of knowledge, but what he doesn't possess is real world experience. In the real world you have to rely on your wits and you don't have a team of advisers telling you what to do and think.

Garrett is basically naive of real world issues. He has good intentions but nothing more, as this article by Andrew Bolt articulates very well

2. David Kemp is the most uninspiring politician I have ever seen or heard. He is an academic who is there purely to appease the likes of you who are impressed by academic qualifications. Malcolm Turnbull is old money Liberal blueblood who has had the foundations laid for him from the day he was born. This does not make him unintelligent, but it sure as hell means he is detached from the real world. This is the same guy that couldn't even bring together the republican movement, let alone anything else. Merchant banking and defending spies is a far different proposition to getting your hands dirty.

David Kemp may be more interested in getting policy right than attracting headlines or getting his face on TV, but that is a good thing. He has been an excellent Environment and Education Minister. Malcolm Turnbull will be an excellent addition to the Parliament.

3. You say that the party generally puts up party hacks, yet when they recruit a person who is passionate about the environment, aboriginal rights and has demonstrated the ability to put forward solutions, you criticise the ALP. Should they be recruiting more folk like Alexander Downer? The Labor model is not perfect by any stretch, but neither is a system that has produced the likes of Downer, Bishop, Kemp, Crichton-Brown, Tuckey, Reith, Alston and turned good people with good values such as Ruddock and Costello into heartless machines that put the interests of corporations above that of the people of Australia.

I would like to see the ALP attract more people from private business and the legal sector, and fewer from unions. Garrett is just a stunt candidate, but they can put up who they want.

Your us against them attitude to business is puzzling. What is good for business is good for the consumer and employee, and what is good for the consumer and employee is good for business, in 99% of cases. As an employer (as you say you are) you should know that.

 

[Wicked Lester]

In his book, From the Suburbs, Latham states, on page 129:

"Labor's culture is deeper and more durable than that of other parties. We demand from our members a long and testing apprenticeship before they can run for public office. There is no walk-in, walk-out way of serving working people. It takes a lifelong commitment."

 

[afc9798]

Originally posted by Tim56
Garrett is basically naive of real world issues. He has good intentions but nothing more, as this article by Andrew Bolt articulates very well



David Kemp may be more interested in getting policy right than attracting headlines or getting his face on TV, but that is a good thing. He has been an excellent Environment and Education Minister. Malcolm Turnbull will be an excellent addition to the Parliament.



I would like to see the ALP attract more people from private business and the legal sector, and fewer from unions. Garrett is just a stunt candidate, but they can put up who they want.

Your us against them attitude to business is puzzling. What is good for business is good for the consumer and employee, and what is good for the consumer and employee is good for business, in 99% of cases. As an employer (as you say you are) you should know that.

Again a very thin party line response Tim. Firstly Andrew Bolt is to be ignored as he is a noted conservative journalist (and I use that term lightly) who is deliberately employed to provoke anyone who is more than 1cm away from hard right. You should know better than to think that I would even waste my time to read it. let alone post a link to Phillip Adams and expect you to read it.

David Kemp's achievements are that he has made education less available to the masses, supported a system that sees those who attend private schools as the inheritors of the earth. As an environment minister he has achieved precisely nothing. Can you show me the great Kemp initiatives that are reversing the harm done by years of neglect by industry and development? Kemp is a lame duck who got rolled from education by the Labor supporting, then I turned Liberal Brendan"I'd better take my earring out now that I'm a Liberal" Nelson. Talk about sellouts!!

How do you know Malcolm Turnbull will be an excellent addition to Parliament? He may just remain an elitist snob who thought he might have a chance at the aphrodisiac of being PM. What does Turnbull know about the struggles and issues of the average person. The North Shore lightweight might find it all a bit tough.

I don't have an us against them attitude to business, but I do when it comes to the businesses that manipulate their puppets in Canberra to get a better deal for themselves. What is good for business is not necessarily good for consumers and employees. How has the increasing profits of the banking sector benefited people. Reduced services, mass retrenchments, increased fees and increased salaries of executives. The shareholders benefit, but the bad has far outweighed the good. Or is it good to see people lose their jobs, services reduced and fees rise? My business plays by the rules, employs people not slaves and returns a healthy profit. The biggest issues I have in business is the ridiculously laborious red tape, the level of taxation and the lack of interest in buying from Australian companies, despite a price differential that is only marginal and before freight costs. The current economic strength in Australia is as much a result of external factors as it is of the current Govt's. economic management. Have you ever been self-employed Tim? If not how do you think you can even tell me how good it is for business at the moment.

 

[TheBloods]

Garrett against Lomborg was a classic. The man who is meant to be such an expert on the environment was challenged by Lomborg and had no answers.

The example given by Bolt this morning regarding starvation was a classic - I remember the interview on 60 minutes and Garrett looked like an idiot.

 

[BloodyPrincess]

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
I notice Anniswan has NO VIEWS on this.Very interesting.

Well after reformatting my 3 computers at home I am finally able to have time to respond.

I have views and personally I reckon that it's fantastic. It shoved it right up Sussex St who were taken by surprise.

Instead of getting some party hack that is looking for a big super payout, we now have a passionate enviromentalist who will attract the 35-45yo voters which the ALP need to win government.

Gotta laugh at Lateline tonight have Peter King on commenting on the Garrett thing.

 

[Lennyfan]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
The green movement are idealistic & hypocritical.

Dam the franklin, no way it will destroy the enviroment. Lets just import coal for electricity and produce more greenhouse gases.

Save the old growth forests! No more controled burns!

With the increase in fuel they burn down anyway and you never see a tree hugger trying to fight the fires.

Have you read up on anything about clearfelling???

There is a huge difference between controlled burns (which take place within small area's to defend households, during fires or at places where there is a huge build up of fuel at dry summer times after rain).

Most "save old growth" centres around rain forest or cool temperate forests which would be the last place a build up for fuel would happen. There are many problems to do with clearfelling, including the fact that they use napalm or normal fires to destroy the left over trees and scrubs that are not used. (this is after they pulp 80% odd of the trees cleared) This is a high strength fire which destroys any habitat trees that they have left over, and I have seen more then one get out of control and create a bush fire (hmmmm and we got blamed for it.... go figure!).

This fire is done to create a good soil and encourage a couple of tree species (almost a mono-culture..... this does not mean the environment grows back... another piece of properganda...). The loss of habitat trees for endangered owls, possems and birds are also a problem. Weeds are also a worriedsome after fact.

So yeah, I would be very happy for us not to knock down some very ecologically important old growth and rain forest environments, even if a small amount of people might have to be helped into new employment (tons of people lose their job, do we cry?? no we try and help them back into the workforce...)

but perhaps the 10 cents a ton the large companies get for our environment is worth this loss......

(but no, lets generalise without the facts.......)

And on dams...... how about we stop wasting water on stuff like growing rice in low water areas..... so sensible? *wink*

 

[Lennyfan]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9808674%5E25717,00.html

Quote from this article....
'He insists "we are in the midst of an extinction catastrophe unprecedented since a meteor strike took out the dinosaurs", when in fact even the International Union for the Conservation of Nature puts the extinction rate at no more than 0.014 per cent of species a year. If that. '

Did a quick google search

http://www.iucn.org/info_and_news/press/species2000.html

Same International Union for the Conservation of Nature

first paragraph....

'The world's species face an unprecedented crisis. The rate at which they are being lost is alarming, even when compared with the extinction episode of 70 million years ago when the dinosaurs disappeared. No-one knows exactly what the current extinction rate is, but recent calculations by leading scientists put it at between 1,000 and 10,000 times greater than it would naturally be. The rate of extinction also appears to be increasing. Species are threatened in every habitat on every continent, though the severity of threat varies from place to place. Evidence suggests that freshwater habitats, particularly rivers, and oceanic islands are very severely affected by species extinction. Tropical Asia and Australia appear to suffer particularly high extinction rates'

...............................

PS - Easy to ambush someone with a set of stats which are not referenced.... oh stats... so easy to manipulate

 

[Lennyfan]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9808674%5E25717,00.html

Can anyone explain to me what "fresh" means??


'He demands we spend tens of millions more to "save" the "sick" Murray from "rising salinity trends", when in fact the Murray has not been this fresh for half a century.'

and how it relates to salinity......

so lets assume by going with bolts logic, the sea is not fresh....

stick to being funny.....

Those in glass houses should not throw stones!