Makes Bob Hawkes Australia card look like a T model Ford.

What is the answer?

The answer is what is the question?

Dan.

Well, who has more rights over their financial affairs? We with an elected government have not many more rights than the average Chinese citizen. As we remain the only (alleged) democracy, without a bill of rights.

Rights that would guarantee free speech and the right to know, Freedom of the press!

Press freedom is the only real difference between our (alleged) liberal democracy and any totalitarian regime.

Our system of preferential voting can and has meant, an elected "representative, that up to 85% of the electorate rejected! Moreover, we are not completely free from official corruption, cronyism and cover-ups either!?

However, if the Chinese had a free press, the genocide committed by the Chinese authorities at Tianimin square and elsewhere couldn't be swept under the rug or labelled fake news etc.

And could be the new normal here if the hard right in our government here continues to be the tail that wags the liberal party! No names no pack drill, but I know you know who I mean! It's all well and good to point a finger at the sty in another's eye, while ignoring the plank in ours!

However, the last thing we need to worry about is transitioning to a cashless society, given this would curtail most organised crime, drug smuggling, arms smuggling and people trafficking.

Few if any of us carry cash but pay for everything with a card, given this allows us t kept a record of all, our transactions, oblige traders etc, to pay obligatory GST etc.

So, to encapsulate. If social credit reduces white-collar crime and corruption it might be worth tolerating. only those trying to beat the system have much to fear here. Whereas in China, sadly, it is and can be used as a tool by a totalitarian regime to persecute minorities and quell dissent!

Social credit used to mean raising money via the government and essentially borrowing from yourself for specific infrastructure projects that cancelled a very tempory debt with the completion of said project/valuable asset!
Alan B.

This is shocking and depressing: such companies that aid the Chinese regime, ought to be charged, among other charges, as accessories to genocide. All their assets ought to be confiscated so that nobody else would think that they can become rich at the expense of others' freedom.

---

Dear Alan,

Freedom of press is only a tool, only a safe-guard, it cannot replace actual freedom. Far more important is the freedom of religion, which is absent in China.

Preferential voting increases the chances of individuals to be somehow represented in parliament, including such individuals that happen to be in the minority of less than 15%. While a minority cannot form a government, would you rather silence them completely?

I use cash and only cash in face-to-face transactions. I am disgusted by the proliferation of filthy digital devices, which I try to avoid when possible. Just because you have different preferences it seems that you are too happy to sacrifice my freedom which is dear to me, the freedom from technology.

Having commercial corporations know about you and me is sinister, so cash allows me to enter a shop anonymously and leave it anonymously. However, what government can do with your shopping information is even more sinister because they can then also persecute you for what you HAVEN'T purchased!

... and just consider what if Australia falls in the dirty hands of communist China, along with your shopping history... why you haven't bought pork? someone would be at your door at the early hours of the morning to take you away to "re-education" on suspicion of being Muslim.

No, no need to silence anyone, it's not as you imply, either or. I mean, if the two leading candidates were allowed to progress to a new and final vote, the wishes of the electorate would prevail, rather than the machinations of power brokers doing dirty deals after midnight deciding who shall represent us.

Given this is the way it works now! What's the point of folk voting?

Moreover, electorates should be doubled in size and each party invited to send two candidates, one male one female. And with that ensure we do have gender equality of representation. And if you feel that's not good enough, we should just go to a proportional representation model.

We are with but one exception, the most over-governed nation on earth with roughly one-third of the workforce, public servants living on the taxpayer dollar. We could close all state legislators tomorrow and not too much would or should change.

We don't need more people just far more regional Autonomy and the return of unpaid professional volunteer boards in our essential service provision. And retask the annual 70+ billion we'd save with this, long overdue pragmatism.
Alan B.

Dear Alan,

Anything short of either direct democracy or proportional representation, is undemocratic.

You suggested closing all state-legislators: I rather close down the commonwealth. It is good that you want more regional autonomy, but the commonwealth is a hindrance, so let's get rid of it!