What is happening in Tassie is a sign of things to come on the mainland.
Most would rather have the main two parties represent them fairly, but the fact is they are currently more alike than different. Both lean to the Right and since Howard, any centralist, evidence based policy is unfairly branded "extreme". The media is now so biased that even the ABC cannot be central: they too are being accused of "Left wing bias" even when they are slightly Right of center!
With Labour pushing for Church based policy of information censorship they have become un-votable by many: they have crossed the line into very dangerous policy. Abbott is clearly unsuitable for office as he represents an even more extreme version of Howard...and it says a lot about the rest of the party. Liberals have abandoned liberalism and pretty much all policy based on consistent ideals, Labour has also abandoned any democratic socialist ideals and continues to support profiteering industries and corporate welfare.
Alas, the Greens are the only party that recognise the "War on Drugs" is causing more harm than good and that the environment is more important than the old folks rights to income without thrift or effort.
The neo-capitalist theory that wealth can be lent into existence, hyper inflation is OK so long as it's housing, wars can be never-ending and that obscene profits from non-productive industries is perfectly OK...all while exporting the jobs to cheap Asian countries is unquestioned by the media and the economic "experts".
We are in the grip of extremists in the mainstream and they have successfully mislead the public. Our kids will curse the generations that allowed such stupidity to reign.

The Full Federal Court overturned the flawed decision on the Wielangta case not because of an amendment but because the judgement was made in error. The Full Bench http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2007/186.html overturned the lower court declarations that future forestry operations in Wielangta were likely to have a significant impact on the broad toothed stag beetle (the beetle), the Tasmanian wedge tailed eagle (the eagle) and the swift parrot (the parrot).

In doing so it did not rely on an amendment made by the State and Federal governments after the original flawed decision, the Full court said: "The amendment to cl 68 of the RFA, insofar as it relates to CAR, simply puts in clearer language what we regard as the true meaning of the original clause" and "In our view the clarification effected by the new cl 68, which would have been unnecessary but for the erroneous decision below, does not rob the RFA of its character of a regional forest agreement as defined."

What this case shows is the degree that the environment movement will go to "win". The court transcript shows that Senator Brown went to the coupe to search for the rare beetle, rolling habitat logs and collecting a specimen, that turned out to be the wrong species. His chief scientific witness also went to the forests and set many pit fall traps lined with chemical anti freeze to collect and kill the rare beetle to supply Senator Brown with evidence. The death of one of these endangered beetles recorded for the court case is the only known death of the beetle in the decade since the RFA was signed in 1997.

CJ, I know you only do it to get a bite, I do too, still as no one else will do it, I'll have to.

How can a system that gives 20% of voters, power over the other 80% be called democratic?

On the other question, when are you thinking of going? I don't think it will take long to raise the price of a removalist, once we start fund raising.

Hasbeen: << How can a system that gives 20% of voters, power over the other 80% be called democratic? >>

A system that gives 20% of the voters 20% of the seats has to be more democratic than the 'winner takes all' optional preferential system in Queensland that effectively disenfranchises around half the electorate. The Greens won't have "power over the other 80%", rather they'll have a seat at the table of government, as they should.

Thanks for the offer of financial assistance - I'll remember you if and when we do go, but it won't be at least 5 years or so. Sorry to disappoint :)

Posted by cinders, Thursday, 25 March 2010 1:31:17 PM

" .. "

Nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. If you want to seriously discuss the matter, and I would welcome that, why not read the High Court decision?

As for the clause in question, why not post both the original and the subsequent amendment?

As for the wild accusations, do you have any evidence for that?

How odd.

I don't appear to be able to find the HCA decision on AustLii anymore.

Can anyone assist?