The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A policy wish list > Comments

A policy wish list : Comments

By David Flint, published 1/3/2007

Hopefully the next federal government restores the states to their proper place and does not engage in social engineering or wasting time on the latest elite obsession.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Why does this forum continue to publish this man. He is a bad joke--especially for someone who is/was a law professor. None of his rantings would pass rigorous examination in a decent first year philosophy class!
By the way who are the REAL elites--that is those who hold and exercise REAL power?
For instance isnt it really the friends of the liberal party who want to build a "private" nuclear power station in Victoria. I wonder how much public subsidy they will demand and expect? Who is going to cover the MASSIVE insurance policies? Who is going to pick up the tab if something goes terribly wrong? Who is going to pay for the eventual decommissioning and dismantling of the said reactor? Who is going to be responsible for the "safe" storage of the nuclear waste?

Another example of the REAL elites is that RUTHLESS PREDATOR the Macquarie bank. Surprise, surprise one of the key groups pushing the sale and gutting of Quantas are key liberal party figures. An exercise that is DEFINITELY going to be at the expense of the average tax-payer.
Again who will pick up the tab if/when things go wrong with Quantas and the airline industry in general. The public taxpayer of course.

If you want to know who the real elites are check out who was invited to the garden party for George Bush a couple of years ago.
There would not have been ANY leftish (elite) chardonnay swilling academics etc etc.
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 1 March 2007 9:58:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A timely article, David.

Rejuvenating federalism, especially with new states based on communities of interest is the key to a truly sustainable future. For only with a number of new regional states can we begin to implement a system of monetary policy reforms that enable differential interest rates on a state by state basis.

At present the RBA has to wait until Sydney housing has seriously overheated before applying the interest rate brakes. This delay is needed because the other states are in various positions further back in the property cycle. So when the brakes are applied, the Melbourne and Brisbane markets are in the right phase for such action, the other capitals and the various regions have hardly begun their growth phase.

This exacerbates the volatility of the Sydney market and chokes off legitimate growth potential in the regions. A differential interest rate regime would be unworkably complex at a local government level but at a reformed regional state level it would be a very effective means of creating a more efficient and timely distribution of capital.

The wholesale part of the interest rate equation would then be managed on a weighted basket of wholesale borrowing rates based on the location of each bank's lending activity.

The net effect would be a managed reduction in the growth pressure in the major cities that is off-set by more sustainable growth in decentralised regional economies. A win-win outcome.
Posted by Perseus, Thursday, 1 March 2007 11:16:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, I think the States are history. John Howard has now made it politically acceptable for a future Federal Government to emasculate the States.

I think this is as much to do with the evident shallowness of the State political talent pool as anything else. I mean, if the answers are Iemma or Debnam you would have to wonder what the question was, and who cared enough to ask.
Posted by westernred, Thursday, 1 March 2007 12:31:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Im all for a central government. That way there's less "elites" and less "elites" means fewer dissenting opinions which means its much easier to control and before you know it we are in David Flint's elite-free monarchistic utopia (or should that be dystopia?). Just like David Flint I would love a nuclear power station in my back yard too - if only we could get those evil states out of the way. Elite - its become an oxymoron and those who still use the word these days need to get widdit.
Posted by D B Valentine, Thursday, 1 March 2007 1:11:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am with Hohum on this one - why does this guy get a run - and this time he spent over a thousand words to get to his rather pithy point.

And I have two questions - I made them up myself - not like the author here who tells us he has been asked two questions to justify yet another tired comment - who asked him the questions any way?

And has any one checked his assertion that he never made a wrong prdection in elections since 1993? and what does it matter really? (that was a third)
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 1 March 2007 4:04:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Flint [Howard’s mate and former ABC head] has this to say [“A Policy Wish List” On Line Opinion 1 March 2007]:

“My hope is that the next federal government realises that it can best perform its core functions by concentrating on them, by restoring the states to their proper place and not subverting or bribing them, by not seeing centralisation as the answer to all problems, and by not engaging in social engineering or wasting time on some current elite obsession such as the three “R’s” - republicanism, reconciliation or refugees.”

Pardon? Aboriginal Reconciliation as an “current elite obsession”? I take it Mr. Flint does not support a total rejection of any reconciliation process per se but, instead, supports PM Howard’s project-in progress of “practical reconciliation”. If, as his article does read, he rejects the policy of reconciliation full stop, then maybe some of his colleagues and supporters and others in the conservative ranks would like to know what he would envisage as a suitable policy replacement.

If he was, in fact, promulgating a rejection of the reconciliation process, then, surely, any thinking Australian who is aware of the political, historical and societal background to the issue of reconciliation would indeed be alarmed in the event of Mr. Flint’s ‘ideas’ influencing governmental policy.

I quietly suggest that Aboriginal Reconciliation was not and is not a mere “current elite obsession”. It has and has had, for a decade or more, widespread public support as witnessed, for example, in the million –plus Australia-wide marches of a few years ago.

Bill Cameron
Posted by Bil, Thursday, 1 March 2007 6:32:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just spent a few days on the farm with my partner's family, who have a property of several thousand acres in a place called Bute, around 140km north of Adelaide. Heard of Snowtown? Yup, the bodies in the barrels in the bank vault - near there.

This time I learned a lot about how agrarian socialism works in Australia. Something city slickers just cannot understand and proof to me why a simplistic approach as let the market rule just won't work.

Maybe it was learning about the young farmer who inherited his land and didn't spray his weeds which were jumping the fence into the neighbour's paddock. Or the people who lived up the road who weren't taking their turn to drive the kids to meet the school bus. And the sheep farmer dependent on the efficient farmer's best stubs of the new harvest to graze his flock. And the terrible roads, internet and mobile phone networks and so much more.

Naturally talk turned to water and climate change, a given in a place where the whole town stood still when the weather came on for a full ten minutes. The news mentioned the new $10 billion deal for the Murray-Darling. My partner's father, a member of the ABB Grain board, said he thought the idea of an expert commission was a good one. He said the science should dictate the way to manage water, not the politics.

He went further and even suggested that the idea should be applied to our political system. Instead of politicians being elected to parliaments, representatives of key groups would be elected by their members for a six year term (and no more). To get elected in this system of Expertocracy, you have to be a member of a registered, member based organisation, eg the farmers, miners, steelworkers, doctors etc, the people that know how to run the country, he said. The parliament then elects the executive. And why not? Maybe we could use Germain's Generalized Expertise Measure (GEM) to set the standard? At least food for thought.
Posted by Enderverse, Friday, 2 March 2007 12:12:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Elite obsessions? I think they should best be kept to oneself don't you Davo?

The 3 R's, Republicanism. One, the desire to have a country responsible to itself and no other. Some obsession Dave. Sounds like democracy to me. Yourself?

Two, reconciliation. Is that where Howard sees the real problem with his IR laws and tries to reconcile with the workers? It surely can't be allowing our inidigenous people the same rights as all others. Can this be what you despise Dave?

Three, refugees. Sorry again Dave. We're all refugees here mate. Some willing, some not. But no, we ain't directly descended from the Royal families of Europe and no we don't really choose inbreeding as our method of populating that free country you also detest.

Take the goddam piece of fruit out of your mouth as we can't understand what you say. Actually we don't want to hear it, OK?

The real 3 R's. Just for Davy Boy. Right, Rong and Rorts. A coalition dream. Forget spelling as long as it's right, Right? Write that Davy.

Forgot one, Rubbish, make it 4, who's counting? Back to writing letters to Big Al.
Posted by RobbyH, Friday, 2 March 2007 7:52:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davo, what a surprise, you think the tories will win again, well good luck old mate, you 93' run may just be broken.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 2 March 2007 10:43:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enderverse

The system you describe is the Hong Kong 'democracy' - so called functional constituencies.

Chris Patten tried to rerig the system by making it into as close to a 'genuine democracy' as he could under the HK Basic Law - for example, making all employees of insurance companies the 'insurance constituency' rather than just their lackies and mouthpieces. As most working people were employed by organisations which were represented by functional constituencies, this expanded the franchise to a level far closer to 'genuine democracy'

Of course the Communists were fuming over this and got every one of their stooges and puppets in HK and abroad (such as the permanent head of the Prime Minister's Department in the UK) to try to destroy Patten, without much luck. The whole UK-China trade relationship was going to collapse, according to this reasoning, if you didn't cede everything to the Communists that they wanted.

Patten came back to China as the EU Trade Commissioner, and placed egg on the face of several Communists. And no ban on HK students has been placed on attending Oxford University, though he is the Chancellor of it.

No, Enderverse, the idea is just as stupid here as it is in HK
Posted by Richy, Friday, 2 March 2007 3:22:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poor old Dave must be experiencing a horrible meltdown of cognitive dissonance. He's holding a fork in his toaster.

He loves the constitution that lets him keep his queen, and he loves the Liberals for keeping the riff raff in order.

But what to do when one's beloved Liberals repeatedly violate the spirit, if not the letter, of one's beloved constitution?

He might have better luck abandoning the constitution and just spruiking for the royal family outright. It would probably be the more honest thing to do.
Posted by chainsmoker, Saturday, 3 March 2007 1:59:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
He did state;
“Australians live under one of the world’s oldest, and most democratic constitutional systems.”

This just shows that David Flint doesn’t know what he is talking about!

There is this excellent document published titled “Is the constitution safe” by Nick Hobson which shows how Federal Government of all political colours have secretly replaced the entire Constitution with the purported Australia Act 1986.
I responded to this document with my article titled “The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE”. See my blog
http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH Making clear that the elaborate swindle to rob us of out constitutional rights is not on and it as is unconstitutional.

On 6-7-2006 published book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 was ISBN 0-9751760-2-1

I then filed this as evidence in my appeals (a 5-year legal battle against the Federal Government lawyers which were heard on 19 July 2006, and I succeeded on all constitutional grounds and so in the appeals.

See also my website www.schorel-hlavka.com

You see, I placed also before the Court John Howard had no position to authorize any armed invasion into the sovereign nation Iraq and within Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth) committed TREACHERY.
Likewise so his cohorts.

The then Governor-General Hollingworth for whatever he may have done wrong, at least he refused to DECLARE WAR but Howard and his cohorts took it upon themselves to go to war nevertheless.
I lodged on 18 March 2003 an application in the High Court of Australia seeking a Mandamus/Prohibition for Australian troops to invade Iraq, but the High Court of Australia, on 19 March 2003, the day of the invasion, refused my application within section 75(v) to proceed! Seems to me they were taking sides with the Government rather then remaining impartial.

While State Premiers now are handing over legislative powers, it is and remain unconstitutional as Subsection 51(xxvii) and (xxxviii) are not for the purposes now being used for.
And there is more, as I have set out in great details in my various books.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 1:31:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One positive aspect of this article is that it highlights one of life's little truisms, and one that probably, in his most pragmatic moments, gives JH a little shiver of doom.

With friends like Flint, who needs enemies?

I suspect that one of JH's mates has told him about this thing called the Internet, and how people are using blogs, forums and suchlike to talk amongst themselves.

One of the games in these playgrounds is astroturfing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

The word has gone out that JH is losing his grip on the media, and that he should mobilize the mates to find their shrill little voices in this new medium.

Unfortunately, this is the result.

Being supported by this superannuated old nobody is the Liberal equivalent of a lunch with Brian Burke, only more nausea-inducing.

It is encouraging that the appearance of a stable, intelligent opponent can cause such fear and loathing in our PM and his cohorts. So far their reaction has been utterly predictable - play the man, not the ball - and I'm sure we will see many more, and dirtier, tricks before we get to vote.

But recruiting Flint into the forward line is a big mistake, even though he is a meaningless spent force, because it illustrates perfectly how out of touch Howard is.

Given the constituency that Rudd needs to bring across to his side, Flint's intervention can only bring him joy and hope. If JH is already this desperate, Rudd is a shoe-in.

A side note to OLO. Can we make a deal - if Flint's self-proclaimed record "I must reveal, somewhat immodestly, that I have not been wrong in predicting a general election" comes to an end, can you insist that he writes an erravi?

Should be even more amusing than his normal contribution.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 9:00:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sille,

Considering the harm done to Australians, such as Vivian Alvarez Solon, Cornelia Rau and others the lack of applying DUE PROCESS OF LAW is the culprit. It doesn’t matter if Cornelia Rau spoke German or any other language, Courts are there to ensure that JUSTICE PREVAILS, albeit I admit they often get it wrong.
Their legal status can only be determined by a Court of law, not some public servant in an office!
And, the cost of getting them assessed and possibly deported in a legal manner would by far be a lot cheaper then now having huge cost on keeping them for prolonged time.
Unlike the current system a special Court could deal much quicker with cases and more appropriate and would be a lot cheaper in the overall.
Lawyers do not necessarily be involved unless the Court holds that the accused does not have the ability to comprehend the charges and proceedings.

TAPP

You got to be joking with “Australian "citizenship" is a valued privilege. To qualify, it will be necessary to understand the Australian Constitution and laws and”
Just check out my blog; http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and you might just find that the “The Australian Peoples Party” or yourself of perhaps most people in this forum would not have a clue what their constitution is about or for that matter their Constitution has been substituted with a fake constitution!
So, which constitution is then relevant for “aliens” to learn?
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:21:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy