/The Westminster system, as currently ‘operating’ in Australia might be examined as to whether it is the most appropriate political model for Australia. Particularly that it has given birth to and continues to nurture a two party system which increasingly has failed to deliver satisfactory outcomes for the people of Australia. Might we not examine other models, including a Republic, or at least see where the current system might be improved and made more responsive, including throwing up better candidates for election?'

Bruce, any examples we could aspire in case of a republic superior to our system or maybe some role model political candidates

We certainly need an inquiry into the "Westminster" system as it operates in Australia, especially in the context of discussions about Australia becoming a republic.

What we are talking about are the essential elements of a well designed political and government system. At the heart of any such discussion must lie consideration of the concepts of separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. A well designed government system separates the executive from the parliament, ensures that the judiciary is independent, and guarantees a recognised watchdog role for the media - the fourth estate.

To some degree, the US does better on these issues than Australia. In the US, the elected President is CEO of the administration. Here in Australia the PM fulfils that role as well as being the Leader in the parliament. Thus there is a much greater concentration of power here in the role of PM. The US (and the UK) also explicitly recognise the important role for the media, whereas here in Australia there are calls to curb the role of media even more than is currently the case.

Discussion of these issues is fundamental to any discussion about a republic. However, we rarely see any serious discussion on these matters.

Firstly, why, when discussions of alternative government systems are raised, do we automatically assume that the next logical step must be a Republic?

Secondly, why on earth would anyone advocate yet more costly Commission Inquiries into blatant ineptitude? And what would the outcome of such an inquiry be? Certainly no government of the day (or yesterday or tomorrow) would welcome any such criticism, let alone implement suggested changes.

Our system needs total dismantling and rebuilding. Substitution of heads of state while maintaining a two party preferred political operation will not bring about any real and recognized change.

If something is broke, you can sometimes fix it. More often than not, you need to throw it out and get a new, updated model.

Bruce, yes we desperately need an inquiry into our governmental system.

And we absolutely need inquiries into the sustainable use of water and long-term planning for climate change.

Hey, wait a minute…. no, we don’t need a bunch of inquiries, we need just one….

A Royal Commission into how best to achieve a sustainable future in Australia! This would incorporate water, climate change and the system of government all in one!

What a great idea!

We have two political systems in Australia which most do not comprehend or realise it.

1. The Commonwealth of Australia government which is the peoples government and must adhere to the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia Acts 1900 (UK). Included in the Constitution are the separation of powers i.e. The Parliament, Senate. Judicature etc.

2. The AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT CORPORATION which is the current political system operating in Australia now. The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard is the C.E.O. of the Federal Government CORPORATION and is registered with the UNITED STATES SECURITY COMMISSION so in actual effect they adhere to foreign policy and are ruled by UNIFORMED COMMERCIAL CODES U.C.C. this has enabled unlawfully removing the separation of powers without our knowledge or permission.

The AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT CORPORATION enabled all of the Australian peoples inherent natural common law rights be removed and replaced by Legal Parliament Statutes (U.C.C. Contract LAW). The Australian Law Department, Police Forces, Courts etc. are all CORPORATIONS now with Australian Business Numbers A.B.N.

They are all reliant on the unlawful AUSTRALIAN ACT 1986 which in a referendum vote of the people of Australian voted to retain the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK) therefore the AUSTRALIA ACT 1986 is unlawful and any STATUTES, LAWS, REGULATIONS initiated under the ACT CANNOT BE ENFORCED ON THE PEOPLE without their consent.

Better candidates? Hmm.
Well we could extend our defamation laws into parliament, so as to prevent the sort of disgusting display during question time, and on show, during the final sitting of the 2012 parliament.
The PM has questions to answer?
Says who? The people who want her job!
Why?
Well, because she was duped and betrayed by a person she trusted implicitly, around seventeen years ago.
A betrayal that cost her, her then career, and her relatively lucrative partnership in a law firm; and, a huge price!
Should she be pilloried for that, 20 years on?
And or, on a clients instruction, did the very best job she could, in incorporating an association of union members, in W.A!
I mean, her job then was to act on her clients instructions, to the best of her ability!
That was and remains every lawyer's job description, to this very day, and in so doing, often have to be seen with some pretty shady characters; and or, cut a few corners?
So, should we take every criminal Lawyer to task, for associating with or defending criminal clients?
And wouldn't any judge simply throw out Julie Bishop's questionable stat dec's, apparently elicited for rank political purpose, from reportedly, proven fraudsters; on the grounds that they were entirely unreliable? Ditto, those who present or seek to benefit, from similar material?
Better candidates?
Well yes, but we would have to reform parliament first, so as they won't be driven away in droves, by the very unseemly spectacle and personal, play the man not the ball, unedifying cat fight, that likely has harmed the attackers, far more that the attacked!
To be continued.
Rhrosty.

The Australian government exists to implement the will of the people. That's its only official job. And you don't have to even leave this forum to discover that the 'will of the people' is fragmented, schizophrenic, paranoid, self-contradictory and often delusional. I think the current government is doing a pretty good job of putting that into practice, don't you?

The single most effective thing that any politician could do to improve the state of the nation would be to support training for all in critical thinking and rational decision-making. But since this would inevitably reduce the people's enthusiasm for blindly supporting ideological movements, it would be what Sir Humphrey would call a 'very brave decision'.

Sorry Herbert, I can't wear that.

Obama is using the Environment protection authority to institute dozens of changes, to please his green backers.

Many of these changes were voted down by the house, but he is doing it any way.

Don't think a PM could get away with that here. They would at least have to shove it through parliament, in the bright light of day, not through a back door in the dark.

An adversarial model may have been appropriate for a horse and cart parliament, seeking to rein in the absolute power of absolute monarchs?
But does nothing for a modern democracy, other than endlessly defer essential reform and or overdue capital projects.
Simply put, any infrastructure deferred for around a decade, doubles in cost!
This last week demonstrates far better, than any evocation from me, why we ought to reform parliament!
The archaic adversarial model, has had its time and then some, and should go.
The contest of ideas ought to be expanded and advocated during election time, with the contest winner given free rein, [a fair dinkum mandate,] to follow through with their intending agenda, even if it should include items, like mining the "reef", or utilising our abundant and cheap energy to regrow our own manufacturing and export industries.
Without help or hindrance from an opposition simply opposing at every turn, for opposition sake and or, some perceived political advantage!
Besides, there clearly is enough divergent opinions in every party rooms, to ensure any measure is thoroughly debated, well before it hits the floor, and then only carried by an electronically assisted/protected secret ballot?
So that its passage or defeat, is not determined by in your face, wall punching bully boys?
This then would see some long term vision and the best most capable persuasive speakers and reason, win the day, rather than the most arrogant alpha male personality?
And, an electronically assisted and protected secret ballot in both places, would allow merit and the best ideas to win the day, rather than, odious lobbyists, and stultifying political mindsets.
The adversarial model might serve political parties and or proponents!
But judging solely on its record, it has not served, we the people!
And if the govt fails to deliver, then we have a free press, an independent judiciary and election time reprisals!
A non adversarial model, at least on the floor, would prevent the sort of kangaroo court, unedifying, puerile, shambollick displays on show, in recent weeks!
We deserve far better than that, from allegedly, grown mature adults!?
Rhrosty.

In response to Chris Lewis' call for examples of a better system, can I ask you to look at the Advancing Democracy model at www.advancingdemocracy.info. Though mainly directed at preventing another 1975, it would also improve Parliament by replacing the Speaker with a new head of state, who would have enhanced powers to enforce his or her decisions. That's a start towards improving Parliament, but mainly it's up to the voters to choose different representatives.

For now, let's stick to the royal commission to investigate child sex abuse, which does so much damage to innocent kids, who grow up to be adults.

Then maybe all the other problems in Australia might be answered..
Granted, I do not live in Australia... but I do believe that when a child suffers so much trauma, if affects the whole community..

Let's start from the beginning... and then other issues will fall into place.

Judy Jones, SNAP Survivors Network of those abused by Priest.

Well I'll agree with you there Rhrosty. Never have liked a bunch of Keating's "non representative swill" holding the whip hand over an elected government.

If we elect them, we should let them implement their policies.

If those policies are really bad, they will be chucked out, with those policies at the next election. Much better than half implemented policies, not biting hard enough, to show if they are good or bad.

The Westminster-System was born over a thousand years of English civil-wars.

Its not the problem.

1. We don't want a phony US Republican "Rich lobbyists bully the poor for cash" system - that's Dictatorship.

2. Our system has CANBERRAitis. Its a disease you get when you are responsible for 22million people and sit in a remote location where you don't have to see or care about what happens to them.

Australian's expect Federal-Politicians to sit in every state capital on a rotating basis.
3. The notion that Federal Power, Nation-building and humanitarianism give any government the right to watch good citizens grow families/businesses while undercutting them with immigrants is evil. Growing migrant intakes, dashing local & indigenous hopes with unfair competition, stealing infrastryctur& hopes from their kids to give to new grovellers willing to kiss Canberra-butt and kick local-heads (see Auburn-council, NSW) are the result.

Under Westmister this is just CORRUPTION. It's pure Animal Farm and should be called as much.

Australian Governments since Bob Hawke have shown a level of personal insecurity within the Westminster system that has cut them to the core and that has led them to corrupting a robust Westminster System into Animal-Farm Government.

The sad thing is that apart from 4% foreign ownership, Australia is far more owned and run by foreign nations than is revealed. Just look at the multicultural corruption at every local government area. The express foreign developer & jobs sanctions and yes the shootings that the cops are not allowed to solve.

Lucky country? Sure but for WHOM!

STOP IMMIGRATION NOW!

If you invite lions into your den, one minute they will lick your face the next you'll be lunch. Canberra has yet to understand this.
But SOOON many Federal politicians will. I personally hope their souls rot in hell!

Australia is NOT and never has been a 'nation-of-immigrants'. It has been a British colony except the last 30 years. To confuse mining benefits with multicultural trash and uncertainty and say we have always been that "Great Nation of immigrants" way is the ERRAND of a THIEF or a FOOL.

Gypsy is right. This is a must see sight.http://www.truth-now.net
Frequently Unanswered Questions.
Scott Bartle found this out when he tried to import a car from the USA,Customs would not answer his questions.Why are some of our Govt agencies registered in Washington DC with the Securities Exchange Commission? Why is our national emblem trade marked?

On a test item Scott imported, he questioned the validity Customs to charge GST + duty.Customs waivered all charges.At one point they even threatened him with investigation by the AFP.

Yes, i again state that it not necesaarily our institutions at fault, but the type and quality of leadership.

Sure many people raise different probems, but i am looking for political leadership that can call a spade a spade and appeal to the electorate about what we may need as major reform and how we can maintain our strengths as a society while we make such change. Quite simply, every interest group looking after themselves is not the solution, but a certain way to divide Aust as fiscal problems lie ahead.

This also requires our universities and thinktanks to lift their game rather than hide behind crap like our media is brainwashing the electorate to oppose supposed brilliance from Labor, or that everything will be fine with a mining boom or even an NBN. I have met a few adacemics, and i can only count a few that accept the problems ahead

KAEP:

...I remember a time when Australia had under ten million people, an equitable public housing system existed, everybody who could work did, housing was affordable, and if not it was acceptable to live in a humpy or shed with your family while building a house, homelessness was the preserve of the alcoholic, a back yard was always the “norm” where a garden usually flourished with a few chooks scratching around, everybody had a backyard incinerator, kids wore no shoes from choice, and everybody spoke either English or was a pommy, petrol was inexpensive and Chines residents were generally the good guys.

...All that and more good stuff flourished amid a mandated white Australia policy…where did it all go?

Chris: You say: "I am looking for political leadership that can call a spade a spade and appeal to the electorate about what we may need as major reform and how we can maintain our strengths as a society while we make such change."

I agree with you. And as a result I was thinking about which of our past leaders, state or federal, might meet your specifications.

The ones I can think of are Geoff Kennett in Victoria, Ted Mack at a local level in North Sydney and maybe Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. Some might consider John Howard, but my view is that he was too weak on some issues, particularly climate change science.

No doubt there are others who might qualify such as Campbell Newman, but the jury is still out on him.

The Westminster system is not the problem. The corruption of it is the issue.

If our politicians did what they are supposed to, ie; the right thing for the achievement and maintenance of a high quality of life for Australian citizens, then we’d be right.

If we can stop the terrible future-destroying pandering of government to big business, we’d be well on the right track.

We would then be able to reduce immigration right down and head towards a stable sustainable population, and we would hopefully be able to start winding back foreign ownership and regaining a higher level of control over our own land, resources and destiny.

I really don’t understand why the imperative to achieve a sustainable future draws such a small level of interest on this forum, or why the blatantly obvious in-bed relationship between our decision-makers and the powerful, rich and greedy doesn't stir a much higher level of protest.

Rare agreement indeed hasbeen!
With just one exception, we are the most over governed people on planet earth, and consequently, dying under the weight of consequent desynchronising or doubled duplication in triplicate, red tape; and or, state govts, who arguably look after themselves and their cronies, far better than those they are elected to SERVE!?
Our numerous and hugely overpopulated state parliaments cost somewhere north of 70 billion per!
If one includes the Fed, the price we pay just for "road block" oppositions, is somewhere north of 40 billions per?
And money that could be far better spent else on unmet need or deferred infrastructure, like say a seriously overdue, nation building rapid rail system!?
Rhrosty.

Bruce Haigh, good approach and article.
Yes, Australia should have a royal commission into governance of the nation.
From personal ongoing experience there is clear evidence the present system, although of good repute, is broken down.
My local MP and the nearby national opposition leader are not available to discuss evidence of serious and general seafood devastation and solutions linked to collapse of world food sustainability.
Major media is gagging ocean damage incidents that form evidence of the real state of ocean food web ecosystems. There has been seven dead whales on Frazer Island alone in the past 2 years.
A baby humpback whale carcass head washed up at Whale Beach Sydney 25 Nov 2012, where children were swimming in the tidal pool near the seeping ooze where surf washes up and fills the tidal pool, was not even reported. (photo at Facebook - John C Fairfax) (modern day whale watching) TIC.
Australia is a food producing nation yet major farm industry is being sold to foreign 'investors' while Australia now imports over 70 percent of fish consumed. Tough for starving whales, penguins etc.
Over 90 percent of north Queensland export beef abattoirs are already foreign controlled.
How can such tax base industry just be sold when that industry was developed with Australian taxpayer resources? What will replace tax revenue for Australian infrastructure? International profit shifting (IPS)is known to occur?
There is need for viable whole of water ecosystem and food sustainability, proper management.
Marine parks do nothing to stop or reduce sewage nutrient pollution feeding algae smothering seagrass food web and warming ocean currents.
Consequence is African-type ocean food ecosystem devastation occurring that present government and media regime is not duly addressing.
What a waste. A Royal Commission might find crime against humanity and the environment.
Food and Pacific unrest - national security is at stake.
Give peace and prosperity a chance.

A royal commission for gods sake. Has one of these ever done anything good.

You get a bunch of clapped out old judges, who, if they ever had any idea of the Oz community, forgot it long ago. An arrogant elite, with about as much empathy with the aspirations of Oz people, as I have with the ants in my back yard.

You stick them in a room, with a bunch of fawning assistants, & run a bunch of equally elitist academics past them, spouting some rarefied theoretical ideas of how things should be done. What on earth would you expect to get out of such a pantomime, that we don't currently get for free from my mates bulls ?

We had a commissioner who looked like he was going to be a bit tough on the Patel/Bundaberg hospital enquiry. They must have got frightened of what he might reveal, & got him out of there damn quick.

Sounds like our likes free pantomime.

Diver Dan. Yes we did once have a shameful white Australia policy!
A policy that simply allowed us to ignore the disgraceful plight of Australia's first citizens; and or, original custodians!
By hey, if the current kaleidoscope is a problem mate, then why don't we have a white Australia day?
On that day we coloured/deeply tanned folk, could go around and paint all our cousins, with high quality white wash, and insert beautiful ice blue contact lenses, and peroxide the hair?
Would that make them more acceptable mate?
Or would you then have to simply acknowledge, that we are all white under the skin, we all bleed red blood, piss straw coloured urine, and experience joy and happiness; and or, react to adversary or a patent injustice equally?
And just to be even handed, we could have a black Australia day, and paint all those superior white folks, with several coats of store bought suntan, along with inserted brown contact lenses, and deep black dye for the hair?
And then turn them loose, on say, the real estate market and have them try to rent an "up market" house, or belly up to the nearest, attitudinal "Toorak type" bar?
All while jabbering, ying tong ying tong ying tong ying tong piddle li po, to each other?
To which an Asian realtor/publican might say, I didn't know Youse folks could speak Chinese?
To which they might reply, Holy horse feathers, neither did we, until now.
You all have a nice day now, y'hear.
Rhrosty.

<< A royal commission for gods sake. Has one of these ever done anything good. >>

D’Oh Hazza, you see everything in that worst possible light.

I’m sure you will agree that we need fundamental governmental reforms, and that this is of the utmost importance. So wouldn’t it be a good idea to get the highest research and recommendatory mechanism in the land to come up with the best way forward?

Wouldn’t a Royal Commission be just the tool?

I mean, we could ask the Australia Institute or the CSIRO or some other reputable body to do it, but I’m sure you’d be as condemning of them.

So then, what DO you suggest??

No Luddy I most definitely will not agree.

As with our constitution, any change suggested by the pollies, the Public servants, academics, or the judiciary would either have heaps of detrimental unintended consequences, or intentional consequences, obscured by male cow poo so the public don't see it until too late.

The only other people to benefit from any changer would be the lawyers. The hundreds of legal challenges would earn them heaps.

The system can't be too bad. It got rid of the first school teachers/academics party, the Democrats, & is slowly removing the second teachers/academics party the greens.

Any system that provides that level of self cleaning can't be all bad.

We live in an Oligarchy ie Corporations now have control of our Govts.It was always thus but now is much worse.

Back in the 1960's when we had Govt banks they could produce 15-20% of new money to equal increases in population + productivity + inflation.Now all of this money is created as debt by private local and overseas banks.Our Govts are now hostage to the private banking system and all the corporations they have shares in.He who pays the piper calls the tune.

So consider this important observation.The harder we all work and produce,the more debt we incur.So the solution to keep enough money in our system is to have inflation being equal to growth.The West nearly always has 2-3% growth and the same inflation rate.

Thus now the Western World is consumed by debt from which it can never escape unless we stop expressing our growth + inflation money as debt by private banks.Real growth and decmocracy is impossible under this system

China still produces 80% of new money via Govt banks.They can grow at 8-12% and still don't look like slowing.

So you are more or less happy with the way it is then Haz!?!?

But… hold on… you are OLO’s greatest whinger…. er… I mean, critic of our pollies and the way they do things, aren’t you?

What am I missing? You seem to be presenting total contradiction here!

As you should recall Luddy, I don't think Howard did too bad a job.

I don't think it is the system at fault old mate, it is the practitioners involved at present that are the problem, that & some of the fool voters who are just so gullible.

Every red herring the horrible red head had dragged across the 7.00 o'clock news, [ABC of course as they are so kind to her], has picked up a moderate to large number of supporters. When the voters are so dumb, we get people like her in the lodge.

Weather we have any better available can only be answered by time, but no matter what the system, if it is controlled by dishonest con-men/women, it will not be successful in catering well to the population.

<< I don't think it is the system at fault old mate, it is the practitioners involved at present that are the problem, that & some of the fool voters who are just so gullible. >>

I basically agree Haz.

But it still boils down to the same requirement – an in-depth study on how we set it right - a major study that will have the balls to make pollies implement the recommmendations on how we tweak the system and make sure that the basic principles therein are respected…. and how we make sure that we get the best calibre of politicians and keep them on the straight and narrow.

There is something wrong with law about law, at least in Australia.
Law is supposed to deter crime but in Australia politicians can engage in false pretences and virtual extortion while creating law, such in legislation for carbon pricing/tax based on un-justifiable grounds about CO2.
Major media aids and abets the phony CO2 debate by showing news of steam condensation stacks, the tapered-like structures with white steam billowing out but in news are hinted at being CO2 emissions.
I think the public generally is dumbed down and trusts news media.
There are now so many experts with so much unprecedented data but look at the mess the nation and world is getting into.
It's absurd. Cash money needed by consumers has been turned into a trading commodity amongst money dealers, instead of being generally more available for consumers to buy to consume.
An d all the finance law and up and down interest rates to put the brakes on the economy are all protected by legal fiscal policy that in reality forces people to borrow and pay interest.
There is a gross lack of cash for consumers.
How much export revenue will the NBN produce? All legal of course.
Meanwhile the waste of time school yard bickering in parliament continues.
Bring on some type of revealing inquiry, for sure.

...Well Rhrosty’ you appear to have had a bad time under the tradition of the white Australia policy, (and that’s all it was, an immigration policy). It was disbanded as a policy at about the same time GB decided it could no longer keep its “bulging-inward” doors locked against the Pakistanis’.

...One could not contest the “rabble” that the good old “Mother Country” has descended into since that fatality of judgment: Should I use the word “terrorism” at this point.

...Likewise, Australia descended into a “drug-den” coincidently about the same time of the Vietnamese plunder of Australian standards! But I’ll hasten to add, at the least the new lot of boat arrivals have a similar religion based on recognisable morals to our own.

...So you may wish to have a little ponder on that….

Hasbeen, I've rounded up a few cows in my callow youth and even a few bulls, as have many of my friends.
Now, the cows are the ones with udders?
Right?
And the bull is the one that has none?
Right?
And or, extraordinarily difficult personal problems for you, or put another way, on the horns of a dilemma; and or, puffing across the paddock, rocketing past the road runner, if you ever try and milk one!?
[ Bellowing, legs, if you caint go any faster, move over and let dis y'ere body true!]
So, where did you see/find these male cows, you refer to?
Or the excreted excrement, that emanated from the southern end of the them, as they perambulated northward?
Or, is it just a case of a naturally nocturnal mushroom, not being able to distinguish between either, as it's shovelled by the shipload, by both sides of the political divide?
[And you know what "they" say about mushrooms? And don't "they" have a lot to answer for, with all "their" homespun homogeneous homogenized homilies?]
Or or the very best reason ever put, for reform of our patently puerile parliaments, or their pompous pontificating panjandrum popinjays; and or, the pantomime that regularly descends into polychromatic polymerized pandemonium?
I recall a foreign film, made in the Czech republic, titled insanity, almost every time I watch question time.
The story line, as you may have guessed, is what transpires, after the inmates take over the asylum.
Little wonder, a group of capricious catawhauling crows or repetitiously raucous rooks are referred to, as a murder of crows; or indeed, a group of baboons are referred to as, a parliament of baboons; or should that read, ballistic bombastic buffoons?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Rhrosty:

...Have you taken the blue tablet this morning as doctor ordered?

Via Google:

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) - IMDb
www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/
Rating: 8.8/10 - 363864 votes
Upon arriving at a mental institution, a brash rebel rallies the patients to take on the oppressive Nurse Ratched, a woman more dictator than nurse.
Directed by Milos Forman. Starring Jack Nicholson, Louise Fletcher.
Full cast and crew - Quotes - Synopsis - Trivia

Back on topic:
Did the nurse have red hair?
Then combine Cuckoo's Nest with Yes Minister and an Inquiry. A new soap opera about Parliament of Australia.

Anyway, Cuckoo's Nest was/is a good movie.

JF Aus:

…Capitalism will ensure that the last capitalist will be standing in a desert (for that’s all that will remain of our ecology under capitalism), with all the wealth of the world at his disposal…contemplating his last mortal moments before dying of thirst! And I think he/ (not her), will be a Chinaman!

diver dan,
I think capitalists will soon wake up to reality they can make more money by regenerating the environment than from destroying it.
Often there is the talk about this and that going to occur in 2040 and 2050 etc. But I think those making such forecast have little or no idea of world ocean food sustainability collapse and food and land shortage that drives people into argument, recrimination, civil unrest and war.
It is apparent there is already no longer enough available affordable food to supply the population forecast for 2040 etc. Or perhaps even to feed the world population in 2020 without a major war. I think 2020 especially applies if the real state of world river and ocean ecosystems and food supply is not seen and attended to with solutions immediately.
Let's hope there can be some sort of inquiry into proper governance. There is need for sensible relevant government debate on world food sustainability and affordability issues instead of the parliamentary scandal and school yard waste of time bickering.

JF Aus:

...You identify the problem, but the solution is the "real" problem.

...We are in need of some "radical" and urgent political re-adjustments in this country on all levels...

diver, I agree. Parliamentary name calling and hunting for legalities that do not exist are not going to solve the problem of enough food in the world. We are a vast country .. dry yes, but why not research ways of wetting our arid landscape or producing crops that need less water. THEN we should start on our political system. It sure does need a lot of overhauling. We, the people, are to blame. We are becoming selfish and vote for whoever can give us the most, not for the good of the country. There are a lot of wrongs to be righted, but it's not simple to do.

Don't talk rubbish folks. Not enough affordable food my ass. The problem is, people don't want to pay for it.

As a boy I had to do the shopping. We spent 35% of net income on food, in a small household. Another 35% went on housing, & 10% on government charges, [power car registration etc], leaving just 20% for everything else, & we managed.

Today housing can easily cost 40%, government charges 15%, & everything else 30%, leaving just 15% for food.

Back then the sale of 10 bullocks would by a new large car, say a Chev or Dodge. Today, you'll have to sell 30 of them, just to get a commodore.

Hundreds of thousands of acres of previously productive land are going back to scrub, or being split up into lifestyle blocks, because farmers can't make a go of it, on the extremely low return on food items.

If city folk want food, they may just have to get by on one car & TV, & pay enough for food, to make it worth producing. Farmers may not be too bright, but they have smartened up a bit recently. They are no longer prepared to work 12 hours a day 364 days a year, for not much more than the dole.

Just like the tradesman before him, who demanded a reasonable return on his labour, [part of the reason housing has got so expensive perhaps], our farmer will no longer cop it.

Instead of coming up with ways to spend money we just don't have, [disability insurance scheme anyone], we may have to cut back some luxuries, to pay for the basics.

My neighbour throws out 35% of his avocados, because any minor mark makes them unsalable. We all love them, but it doesn't feed the city.

My 18 acres of irrigation could feed a hundred people, if farmed by some Chinese coolies, & they might just be stupid enough to work that hard for the pittance they would earn. I'm sure not.

Hasbeen,
Look beyond where you are yourself and how you live and have lived.
Six months a year I am alongside people who are being stunted during childhood and are shrinking in stature when 40 and there is a 67% increase in maternal mortality, all because of a lack of money for employment and income to buy essential protein food.
Worldwide there are billions of would be consumers if they could be, and not just food consumers.
The system of government seems broken.
My local MP is unreachable, office staff seem to vet calls and shut out information they themselves do not comprehend.
Then there are the experts with access to more data than has ever existed in history of the world, yet look at the state of the world economy.
The NBN amazes me, a project so people can see their doctor, not a project that will produce employment and goods for export. Politics aside, the NBN is not productive and so much capital for it is tied up and virtually wasted.
Meanwhile, look at what is being debated in parliament that is productive? Nothing.

JF I didn't say the system was not stuffed, I said there was plenty of food, & enough capacity to triple what Oz produces very easily.

Another mate of mine desperately wanted to be a farmer. God knows why, in most things he's not that stupid. He & his wife & son lived in an unlined tin shed for 5 years, before admitted he couldn't make a decent living at normal farming.

They stayed there another 4 years, getting his place approved & productive as organic. The final straw was when in a month period, none of the beautiful stuff he sent to market returned the cost of the box it went in, & the freight charge.

She threatened to leave, so he went back to mechanicing, & now owns a prosperous service station.

He still dabbles in growing stuff, & sells a bit at markets, but, like Belly, most he gives away.

Some areas of the world the population have grown beyond their capacity to feed themselves. It is up to them to find an answer they can live with. Food is cheaper than ever before, but yes I think the system is badly bent, if not broken.

We have kept too many alive & breeding in many areas. Many societies were not ready for the huge boost in fertility western medicine, & food aid generated.

We could feed multiples of our population, but only if those doing the work are rewarded for that work. When our population either can't or wont pay enough for their own food, don't expect the food for others to come from here. It just wont happen long term.

Hasbeen,
I agree with and understand all you say there and the situation you paint helps provide evidence of why there is need for significant inquiry in governance, governance that allows such a stupid situation to exist.
But there is also the situation I am trying to point out. Yes there is plenty of food for those who can afford it. And I agree farmers are not getting what they should be. I think there is need for an inquiry to investigate food production, in other words sustainability of farming itself.
Now the whole world ocean is almost empty of viably available food so why let farming collapse to a degree that even the spirit to farm is being destroyed and lost. e.g. Suicide, kids leaving the land.

I think it wrong that overseas investors are allowed to be aware of collapse of ocean protein and that alternative sources of protein, such as from beef and milk production, now have a rapidly increasing future and value, while at the same time Australian farmers are being deprived of news of the devastated state of ocean resources.

News I give to media is being gagged, not investigated and refuted or acted on. I see some of this unpublished news information is being hacked, not made public but leading to use by some in the know. e.g Reason to develop aquaculture has not been debated publicly, what's wrong with wild fish? Wild fish has no production cost whereas aquaculture has to be fed and managed. Viable aquaculture therefore depends on wild fish stock collapse. But there are consequences including major INFLATION that is forcing many people to avoid purchase of an increasing range of food.
And when people choose not to buy food is often dumped literally or for next to nothing.

On top of it all there is a worsening shortage of available cash. Many Australian children now go to school without lunch or adequate lunch, it's not just a few anymore and the situation is worsening. Cost of food is increasing even more, unchecked.
Present governance is virtually ignoring causes/solutions.

Australia does not have a Westminster system, just the appearance of it.

We have a PONZI Scheme masquerading as 3 Tier Government.

The problem with Ponzi Schemes is:

* They don't last more than a few years

* When they collapse (next election) everyone loses except the perpetrators who have hidden the loot and cry poor when justice looms.

GLOBALISATION has allowed erstwhile decent men and women in our governments to become sinister frauds. Sad to say that Globalisation will have to be abandoned at some point. But How?
The alternative is continuing financial crises with countries like Australia having its wealth vacuum-upped by US fiscal whimsies executed by powerful computer programs AKA Quantitative Easing.

There has got to be a better way. The Superannuation fiasco highlights the social devastation and the mealy mouthed weakness of our regulatory bodies (ASIX is a fraud).

KAEP
Therein as you state and elsewhere stated on this thread is justification for a Royal commission into the governance of Australia.

KEAP:

…The problem with “our” world is the media. In order to placate national anxieties about the state of the economy and the world generally, it is far more advantageous to stifle information! The less knowledge about the true facts the happier people are to “get on with it”.

…A good example would be to rig the cricket score. For example, the outcome of the recent test match against South Africa could be “rigged” in favor of Australia; so what we see on television are the players running around the paddock playing ball, but the reality of the score is manipulated in Australia’s favour just to put a glow of success on all Australian faces: A bit of a Lance Armstrong effect! You see, if Lance Armstrong had escaped scrutiny how much more glorious would the world be?

… Murdoch found a way to help in this process of “stifling” meaningful news content and distracting attention away from problematic news by “dumbing-down” news flows and forcing (by lack of choice), peoples interest to shift into the seemly world of the neighbours back yard. That’s far enough for the interest of available news to extend for “National Happiness” to flourish!

diver dan,
Murdock or not, major media seems to be all in it together, one media source could not achieve the dumbing down because one out of line with the latter agenda would expose that agenda.
The remainder of your last para there I agree with.
But how stupid whoever they are because their agenda is causing collapse of consumer ability to afford whatever is is produced, including newspapers.
Really stupid.