Is anyone here interested in joining the NewAustralia party?

This is a new environmental party formed by ex-green and ex-democrat members who don't believe the Greens or Democrats are going to increase the net environmental vote beyond 10%.

Our web site is: www.NewAustralia.net.

Key Policies:

* A Big Green Tax Shift
* Balanced Trade
* More Funding for Public Transport, Health and Education
* Cost Effective Defence

Membership is free.

I checked out the website and a few policies. Looks good.

I think that this is just what Australia needs, and urgently!

Good luck with the new party. I will certainly keep an open mind on it. The Greens have there flaws which do desperately need to be addressed but right now I believe they are the best alternative we have. Your new party may be the answer many are waiting for but please regard them as an ally until/unless that proves not to be the case.

I like it.
We should only use our defense forces for defense so I approve of the plans for our military. Not sure about the Russian military hardware. Need more information.

Ive always thought you shouldnt get the dole without working for it and the ideas from this new party are pretty good. Removing all the monkey tricks and the handlers would save a lot of money. As much as I dislike the idea of quarantining peoples money they make a good case and im now undecided. Interesting ideas on gambling too.

Im all for an increased emphasis on public transport although Im not sure if people will ever accept monorails. Are you sure about level crossing abolition? I think it may be harder than you think, especially in rural areas. At least someone is thinking and planning for when oil is running low and I would happily support rail expansions and a rejigging of road and vehicle charges and funding.

Overall seems like a party I could be part of and I will join forthwith.

Ludwig
What do you say Ludwig? Do not you see that its preferences go to coalition? If they start now from the coalition in the future they will be next to ONE NATION!
This "party" is conservative's "TROJAN HORSE" on the left of ALP. Their goal is to damage the ALP and mainly THE GREENS.
In my opinion progresives have nothing to do with this party.
It is our duty to isolate it and put it in its real position, between the Family first and Liberals.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

I should have read their policy summaries before my last post.

While I wholeheartedly support most of their aims such as population stabilization and other environmental initiatives I think they are living in cloudcuckooland if they are going to do this with a maximum tax rate of only 30%. That idea sounds more like Reaganomics than the socialist kind of agenda that their education, health and public transport policies bring to mind.

No Rego is another strange one in the light of their emphasis on public transport etc. In fact it is counter productive.

No tax for farmers is is another anomaly. Why pick on farmers for this generous treatment? I fear there would be a number of unintended undesirable consequences of such a policy.

You're just supposed to read the headlines, kulu, not the policies.

>>I think they are living in cloudcuckooland if they are going to do this with a maximum tax rate of only 30%<<

Their fiscal ideas (they can't really be called policies) seem to be straight from the school of daydreamers too.

Altogether a truly comprehensive wishlist of right-on, PC, utopian, motherhood statements of how we ought to live, if only we were not human beings.

Hey, it's always good to believe that life could be idyllic, if only everyone worked selflessly and sacrificially towards the same golden principles.

But simply observe how we vote each time we are forced to the polls.

We respond instinctively to our entirely selfish responses to the bribes we are offered at election time. Real political parties know and understand this.

Unfortunately, Pollyanna has no place in politics.

And I mean that most sincerely.

Good luck with the dream anyway. You'll probably attract some really nice people.

We need a new political party about as much as we need a hole in the middle of our forehead. Political Parties, are a menace. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would make them obsolete, as anyone at all would have an equal right to influence the direction of government. On an article post and elsewhere, on human rights, I have pointed out that it was made a law, but the public service will not let the will of Parliament be carried out.

It time, was a popular cry in 1972. Its time the Commonwealth acted responsibly, and restored full political power to the people most affected, you and me. You are paying an enormous amount in taxes, to support three huge bureaucracies, one State, one Local Government and one Federal, when their power would be curbed along with their numbers, if you were given back full voting rights, as guaranteed by the Covenant.

Currently you get one vote every three years or so for all three bureaucracies. You are getting seriously screwed by all three. If you insist on your rights under the Covenant, and the Commonwealth is fair dinkum, it will declare the Covenant was made law in 1986, and from this day on, the current restrictions on your exercise of your political rights, in the Federal Court and High Court are abolished. Any member of Parliament in Canberra can suspend the workings of the Parliament, if he raises an issue of contempt or privilege.

This is the Power of One. How one member, can stand like Horatio at the Bridge, and refuse to allow the Parliament to proceed, unless it publicly explains why its deliberations are of no consequence. The Standing Orders of both Houses have this provision. If Nick, or Steve, or Barnaby, a couple of Bob’s in the Representatives, want to do something meaningful, all they have to do is raise a matter of contempt of Parliament.

They would only have to raise contempt, against one Judge, over the failure to apply the Covenant, and Judges will wither like snow in the springtime

i once formed THE ANTI PARTY PARTY..[where each party member is required to vote according to their conscience..[not the party line

[where each member is responsable for their own decisions and own supper]..where each party member is held to account for the forces they unleash to the public service[where the one party policy includes getting back controle is issueing OUR OWN MONEY

with the right to have govt create our own money comes the cancellation of all taxes on wages...comes the right for govt to spend their own money on creating that big buisness wont touch[like a free public tranport system[based on free energy and light rail]...

who has the first adgenda to grow food...to feed the world..[not cotton..[not rice in deserts]...but such is the way of dreams..[clearly the issue of preferances reveals this is yet another family foirst front party for the libs/nationals

[what i would like to see is a liberal/labour party][the party you have when your sick of those party types partying on with our money[or worse funding bankers with ursury and the peoples assets out to multinationals and lying to the people about things like the real rate of inflation..

[include all the numbers..[dont exclude houses/petrol etc..and the real rate of em-ploy-ment..[two hours paid work is not fulltime work]..index basic wages...tax the elites getting bonus scemes..[persue white colour crime..[not police kids for drugs..[let docter perscribe them all[not sell us govt subsidised drugs

exclude the real wealthy from all welfare,not just lock up massive areas of land but value add to it..[and that dont mean grow pine[grow food first]..

give all people a share in the common weal..[return law to where the victim gets justice..not govt gets a punitive fiat dollars as revenue..[where govt taxes income[gain]..not wages

I will look at the website, but I don't really think that we need any more political parties. The party system is the whole problem with politics - people getting together soon sees them more interested in the party than the people they say they are representing.

Vote for independents.

Wow, it's almost unbelievable, untill you think of it's origan, & wonder where the fairies from the bottom of the garden got to.

Hope you have some long ladders, to get to all those pies in the sky. At least all those living in those cheep, high rise ghettoes in the sky, [like the ones in the UK, that are no go areas for the cops], will be closer to those pies.

They will need to be able to get to those pies, when the dream time power policy turns off the power to their lifts, & everything else, you need in the ghetto.

Of course, we won't have lasted long enough to have built many, with that defence policy.

That sub idea is just as good as KRuds similar idea. We can't get enough people to crew more than 3 of what we've got, now, even with 50% higher pay for submariners, than surface sailors. Most people don't like them.

Its bl@@dy sure you wouldn't get many takers, when they are manned, [or womaned these days] by two year contract crew. It taks 3 or 4 years just to learn how these things work, let alone keep them going when the stuff hits the fan.

The same goes for flying those russian jets, with the same maintenance type people. When I flew in the navy, the aircraft were pretty rough, but our blokes knew how to keep the important things going.

Do any of these twits realise these things are not like cars, [or busses, their chosen transport], you can't just put the hand brake on, & call the RACQ, when they stop, mid air, or ocean.

Hear you are, I'll give you a policy that would fix the defence force. All politicians, after their first term, & before they can stand again, have to serve the same time in the defence force, in the most junior rank. Through recruit school, & with at least one deployment.

We would soon have a defence force, people wanted to join, or no parliamentarians. Either would be an improvement.

“What do you say Ludwig? Do not you see that its preferences go to coalition?”

No I don’t Antonios. Why do you say this? Can you explain a little more why you think so poorly of this new party. Why do you think that it is a “trojan horse”?

One of the fundamental things that this new party needs to advocate is electoral reform, especially the abolition of the compulsory preferential voting system from Australian politics, which is currently used at the Federal level and in all states except NSW and QLD.

This should be replaced with the optional preferential system, in use in these two states. Under this system, the voter has control over his/her preferences or can choose to allocate no preferences. Under the other system, your vote can very easily end up counting for a party/candidate that you don’t want it to count for or even that you are specifically voting against!! Yes, that’s how extraordinarily corrupt and antidemocratic it is! (Apologies to those that have read these comments from me previously – I’ve only repeated them on this forum about thirteen million times!!)

NewAustralia needs to jump on this issue…..and on the issue of political donations, that so gravely beholden governments to the wishes of the big, rich and powerful end of town.

Oh, and I almost forgot; the bottom line of the new party surely needs to be to implement policies that direct us quickly towards becoming a SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY!

As a fundamental part of this, their economic policy needs to be be geared towards a shift away from our bizarre system based on never-ending expansion to one that is essentially a dynamic stready-state economic model. Currently, there appears to be nothing suggesting this sort of shift on the NewAustralia website.

Hmmm, interesting, a lot of item it is hard to disagree with.
I just wonder how balanced their basic proposals are as far as
producing enough income for their spending.
Too early in their life to worry about that.
I agree the monorail will never be a mass transport system.
I like their transport policy anyway, but when they face election will
they wilt in front of the electors when they have to propose getting
commuters out of their cars, introducing petrol rationing, congestion
taxes and the mass of other unpalatable measures ?

I don't know anything about Russian military equipment, but I must
ask do any of the founding members know more ?

Do their energy policies amount to freezing in the dark intermittently ?

are they going to issue the defence forces with white gloves so that any invaders can see that our troops have their hands up?

Policies need work.

1. Maintaining trade balances is not always possible as there are external entities over which Government has little or no control. The Opium Wars were over Britian being unable to balance its trade with China.

2. Non-rural businesses would create primary provider SBUs to avoid tax. Total receipts would fall. To some extent small business in country do this already. Besides the rural sector is less productive than industry and commerce. Incentive should go to the most able.

3. Politicians should look to Defence Experts for advice on materiel acquition. No more Brendan Nelson's please. Aquisitions are only a part of the picture. There are also industry off-sets and standardisation of materiel across alied platforms to be considered.

- A very rough draft, but I guess one needs to start somewhere.

Dear 'New Australia Party,'

If you want to be taken seriously -
you're going to have to do better
then simply make up a list on the
web - and ask people to join
your party.

When are you going to give us your
Budget proposal

Foxy,
I think you're jumping the gun. After reading the site thoroughly I get the clear idea that the idea is that everyone joins the discussion group then decides on the detail of the policy.

Ludwig
I think you're a little too cynical with the selfishness of Australian voters.But I believe their problems will be the natural inertia to anything new.

NPA

I do think that standing in every seat is a bit over ambitious. I would suggest that the Dems ran out of puff once it tried to do the seeming impossible with too few resources due to the nature of the party.

The public will accept a balance of power party but you are up against entrenched self interests and 'galloping inertia' fear of the new.

Clear evidence is that neither major is trusted hence 30 yrs + or - of Dems monitoring the extremes of either party i.e. "keep the Bs honest".
The current safety net has a hole 'Family First' in that he is a loose cannon.
I wonder if your party shouldn't offer the the Dems in the real world.
I'll get on the chat line and discuss in details

@ASymeonakis: Actually our preferences are to the Greens and Democrats and any other environmental parties and then probably the Coalition. The Greens would probably preference us and the Democrats and then Labor. This is explained here: http://www.newaustralia.net/about.html.

@Kulu: The key point with NewAustralia is that it promotes a REVENUE NEUTRAL green tax shift. This means a high taxes on carbon, methane, water, logging, etc in exchange for big tax cuts elsewhere. E.g. You pay more for fuel but there is no rego. (Rego is a flat tax irrespective of how much you drive so not really a green tax)

Note the top 30% tax rate comes with no tax free threshold & no negative gearing so not as generous as it seems. Farmers would be hit hard with Green Taxes which is why we suggest they pay no income tax.
See: http://www.newaustralia.net/tax.html.

If you want a green tax INCREASE the Greens are your party.

@Monorails: I am a bit mystified as to why so many people are so anti-monorail. I guess its a combination of Australia only having only small 'mickey mouse' monorails and that famous Simpson's episode!! Check out the pictures on http://www.newaustralia.net/transport_monorail.html and http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=131473. "Currently, the Tokyo Monorail serves nine stations and handles about 127,000 passengers per day, operating from 5:30 AM to midnight with over 500 trains" (Wikipedia)- Sounds like a commuter transit system to me.

We think monorails are ONE OF the options that should be considered where there is no surface easement.

@Russian Military Stuff: The bottom line is we want to save money on defence and still be able to defend Australia. Right now Australia is planning to spend $100 billion+ to defend ourselves against exactly the Russian hardware we think we should be buying. If the Russian stuff is crap - why are we spending $100 billion defending against it? A Sukhoi Flanker costs about 30% of a JSF. The off-the-shelf Russian subs that the "west" is so worried about cost about 10% of an ASC built sub and they deliver in months not decades. Have a look at the APA site: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html. (APA recommends F-22A, but Obama just canceled that project.)

I used to be a farmer, once upon a time, and the little Jolly Green Grasshopper John Deere tractor, made in the USA was so much better that a UTB or a Belarus made in the Soviet bloc, that it was a choice between going broke, or prospering. I had a Dear John, and in 2000 hours of hard slog, the only thing it ever needed was diesel and oil. A mate got given a UTB on mickey mouse terms, take now pay later, but when he really needed it, it stopped making noise. That is the risk with Soviet bloc engineering. Its okay if you have plenty of spare tractors, but for reliability, stick to a yank.

Likewise with Yankee airplanes. The difference between the Nipponese and Yanks, in WWII was survivability. The Yankee aircraft were more survivable than the Jap. The Zero was fast and deadly, but the Yanks were tougher, and eventually faster and more manoeverable. I don’t think we will be disappointed by the hardware we are buying.

I used also to be a member of Her Majesty’s fighting forces. If a man or woman is asked to put his or her life on the line for our country, we want the best money can buy. It is a bit like the difference between a Caterpillar bulldozer and a Case. A Cat will be pushing up dirt all day every day, while the Case will do a marvelous job, be delightful to drive, be flash and fast, but its hydraulic hoses were four braid instead of twelve. That means more that ten time as vulnerable to breakage. The spare steel in most parts in a Case will be the adequate amount. In the Cat there will be 20% spare capacity. The difference in a year will more than make up for the extra costs. If we are going to send our sons and daughters to fight, we don’t want cheap unreliable hardware.

Better to fix one of the parties we have, than reinvent the wheel. The ALP has potential, just needs a bit of help

NewAustralia, I’m very interested in your views on my previous comments, re: electoral reform, the donations regime and the imperative of achieving a sustainable society.

I heard that Pauline Hanson wants to come
back into politics - call me cynical -
but I'd like to know - is she a member of
your party?

You need 500 members before you can be
registered as a Party - how many have
you got so far?

And if you don't have any set policies as yet
why should we join you? Could you tell us
(give us a name) as to who your founder is?

And to whom will you guys be giving your
preferences - if and when, you do get in?

How can you expect anyone to join - knowing
nothing about who exactly you are - what you
represent - why we should believe anything you say,
merely on a made up 'wish list,' that you want
discussed - and only then you'll formulate your
policies? Gee whiz, why don't you guys have
a 'brain-storming,' session? It sounds like
you need all the help you can get.

Dear examinator,

I may be 'jumping the gun,' here -
as you put it ...
but isn't that better than going
into something blindfolded?

How can I join any political party -
knowing only that they say they're
ex - democrats, ex-greens, with only
their word for it (maybe all this is
a ploy by the Libs - to take away
votes from Labour - I wouldn't put it
passed Turnbull's & Co. - antics).

It pays to question things - especially
when all they give you is a "wish-list."

My gran could do better!

I will support ANY damn Party that will rip a gigantic hole in the ALP/Liberal smug complacency!

The Tweedledum and Tweedledummer (you decide), situation that has allowed a rank stagnating, political scene, needs a nicely aimed kick in its tender parts.

@Peter the Believer: If the Sukhoi flanker & Rubin submarines are no good why does Labor want to spend $100 billion defending against them? Maybe Russia's best engineers were NOT assigned to tractors! The Russian arms industry survives only because China, India, Malaysia, etc buy there stuff. Are all these countries wrong? Take a look at the http://www.ausairpower.net site for some detailed analysis of the Sukhoi Flankers relative capabilities.

BTW we support consideration of the F-15E OR the Su-35 instead of the JSF. Either would save ~$10 billion and defend Australia better than the JSF. (We might be better off giving more prominence to the F-15E option, I accept many people are against buying Russian gear. Singapore recently ordered 24 * F-15E)

@Foxy: (1) No Pauline Hanson is not in NewAustralia. (2) The whole of http://www.NewAustralia.net is full of policies - how many do you want !?!? The usual criticism is we have too many! (3) My name is carefully hidden in *BOLD* on the About page. That's one click from the home page. (5) Preferences are explicitly stated on the about page. Here it is again: http://www.newaustralia.net/about.html.

Conspiracy theories are fun but this one doesn't really stack up unless I was to change the preferences to put the Coalition ahead of the Greens & Dems.

Cheers,
AlanIde (Founder)

There is only one policy needed to reform Australia. That policy is to make the Constitution a compulsory subject at school, and teach the kids parsing and punctuation. If the High Court we have today cannot read and write properly, and either will not or can not, understand written English, sufficiently to understand that S 79 means that any proceeding decided by a Judge, is unconstitutional, then a policy should be to sack the lot of them.

Civil and criminal matters are all the same and should be decided in a court. This B**l**t of having two classes of justice, first class for crims, and second class for everyone else is not good enough, for a 21st century nation. The only republic that has stood the test of time, the United States of America, has guaranteed jury trials, inherited from England.

All others have failed. The English republic is failing because since WWII they have given in to lawyers, and established a Roman Catholic system. This model has failed everywhere it has been installed, because government from the top down, is bad, but government for the people by the people works. The only way a republic will work is if it has guaranteed jury trials.

The monopoly on lawyers representing other people in court, was not in force, when the United States was formed. It was not in force in England in 1828. We have to abolish the lawyer’s yoke around our necks, or Parliament is just a waste of time. What they do in Parliament has no relationship to what actually happens in Australian Courts.

I still say that we need some honesty and integrity. The integrity of a court is only achieved by a Justice and judges, not by a Judge, and an exclusive bunch of clowns who like to dress up, with wigs, and cloaks

New Australia Party
Oops I got the letters wrong dyslectic or what?
The NPA was meant for you.

Ludwig: Sorry I forgot to answer your previous query. Your optional preference idea seems fine to me, I suggest you join the NewAustralia supporters forum and submit the idea there for comment. Re sustainable economy I think our Green Tax Shift would steer the economy in that direction at high speed. Certainly it's what we want. If you have better / new wording that you think we could use then again draft something up and submit it.

Cheers,
Alan.

If your preferences are going to the God and human hating Greens don't expect my vote. They are a false religion that sacrifices the unborn at their altars. They worship the creation rather than the Creator with the outcome being perverted policies. Both Liberal and Labour have their fair share of these regressive's although strangely enough they are called progressives in the media. They are in love with the corrupt UN because they share the same godless values and worship the same dead gods. Count me out.

“ The monopoly on lawyers representing other people in court, was not in force, when the United States was formed. It was not in force in England in 1828. We have to abolish the lawyer’s yoke around our necks, or Parliament is just a waste of time. What they do in Parliament has no relationship to what actually happens in Australian Courts.”

Peter, what do you mean the lawyers representing others – is there not a choice to represent one self here?

Hubby was trying to explain to me today about the judges in a tribunal that can change laws. Judicial reviews rewriting laws, he had read it somewhere yesterday in a Sydney paper. I think he would agree with you or at least understand more.

He was explaining it is wrong or shouldn't happen. I was cooking dinner!

NewAustralia, I agree with the neutral green taxes you advocate but I believe that there do need to be some progressive taxes incorporated into the system especially at the higher levels of income where green taxes alone will not deter the profligate consumption that lies together with population growth at the very heart of civilization,s current crises - financial as well as environmental.

You also have a point on the rego but probably the tax policy needs to be supplemented by some mandatory restrictions on the type of vehicle that will be allowed on our roads.

Finally the question of mining royalties needs to be addressed bearing in mind that the resources they extract belong to us all and form part of the nation's capital. Also the mining companies in the boom years received enormous windfall revenues which swelled their bottom lines and enabled them to pay huge wages which had the effect of disrupting the rest of the economy and helped boost consumption no end, not to mention the environmental destruction they, with the collusion of governments were responsible for.

Your policies may already address these issues in which case my apologies for being a bit lazy and not checking them out before posting.

quote<<E.g.You pay more for fuel but there is no rego.>>rego is a state issue[new australia sounds like a federal body]..its simply dumb to say govt are going to give up their rego[plus then we come to compulsory third party[INSURANCE]what you giving away fre insurance as well?

remember the COMPULsory 3 rd party insurance..is 4/5 ths the cost of rego

<<(Rego is a flat tax irrespective of how much you drive so not really a green tax)>>more sense would be to include the rego[and insurance]..into the price of fuel

<<Note the top 30% tax rate comes with no tax free threshold>>so the poor dumb kid getting 5 bucks for delivering papers pays it..[the same as a lawyer who's income goes into a family trust dont pay it]

you planning to tax trusts and multinationals?...they just become farmers[and escape paying tax all together]...you put in loop holes people jump into em...whats the saying macqury street farmers [the new groth tax avoidence industry...

not taxing farmers is dumb...not giving those not growing food govt aid makes sense[but the way your doing it now i can farm swamps..and plant em with cotton[divert whole rivers to grow rice in deserts and escape any tax at all]..grow gmo/corn..no wories..grow gm/soy..no sweat..tax egsemption for vegan farmers only?

how about forestry[all them tax scemes of pine]..irragated with water licences getting tax egsemptions

its funny i noted in the ninties how farmers/miners/loggers took over the green movement..just to shut down our protests..[now by their deeds are they revealing themselves]...i bet the cattle/sheep/pig/chook farmers dont get tax free lurks.

there is so much more absurd stuff put forward..[but hey..you need 500 people before you go anywhere]..formerly...thus the need to gather the newage/farming/mining/gst/carbon taxing voting...green's/democrats..that have gone senile as their new age becomes old hat?

One under god, I think you need to have another look at our tax page: http://www.newaustralia.net/tax.html. I think we are closer to your view than you think! The idea is to replace rego with a the carbon tax that would be levied on fuel. The revenue would have to be recycled back to pay for third party injury insurance (like the Victorian TAC). Overall motorist would pay about the same, but you would pay more to drive your hummer everywhere and less to get on your bike.

In the end no thinking person will agree with *ALL* the policies of any party or independent.

So you have to vote for the party / independent that you dislike the least - or cop-out and put a line through your ballot.

Cheers,
Alan.

NewAustralia, I’ve noticed something that worries me a little.

In your response to Foxy’s questions, you missed one. And in your response to my three points that I sought comment on, you omitted one.

Foxy’s question; “You need 500 members before you can be registered as a Party - how many have you got so far?”, went unanswered.

My concern about “political donations, that so gravely beholden governments to the wishes of the big, rich and powerful end of town”, was not addressed.

This might just be due to a simple oversight, but it does give the impression of possible avoidance of issues that might be uncomfortable to address and thus it damages the perception of transparency and sincerity a little.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m very interested in the new party and I congratulate your for initiating it. I’m certainly not of the same rather negative mindset as Foxy, but I do think that a whole lot of questions need to be asked, starting with really basic ones, before we can gain confidence that signing up would be a good move.

It is easy to be negative about initiatives like this, since it is crystal clear that we are looking at a wish-list rather than policies. I doubt they have been aired outside the wine-bar in which they were hatched.

Financial policies haven't been costed yet, so it would be churlish to ask for any detail.

But one entry struck me as indicative of the lack of serious thinking that has gone into this exercise.

In http://www.newaustralia.net/tax.html you find the following:

"Spending Increase: Free Dental Care! Free Ambulance cover! Cheaper Private Health Insurance!

[note: the exclamation marks are in the table, they aren't mine]

"Funded by: Abolish Private Health Insurance subsidy; No Medicare 'Safety Net' for high income earners

"Revenue neutral? Yes! (Since the subsidy is not a tax measure)

"Winners: Those needing dental care

"Losers: Private health insurance share-holders, employees"

This is so simplistic, so ignorant of the reality of the relationship between the Public and Private Health systems, that it is breathtaking.

If we look at a typical simple $1,000p.a. policy, $700 is provided from after-tax income by the policyholder, and $300 is provided as the government's subsidy.

So for each $300 you "save" with this measure, you lose the $700 contribution.

If you manage to eliminate all Private Health Insurance completely, you take about $7 billion out of the system, at the same time as you put the entire burden of an additional eleven million people onto the Public system.

Detail is not necessarily important at this early stage. But surely some level of reality is.

Pericles is right, the health system is complex and I would suggest
that it should not be touched initially.

Compaed tyo many overseas health systems it is very good.
Not perfect but very much better than many others.

I read the website.

It looks like a feel good wish list of contradictory wants.

Where on earth are they going to fund all these ideas?

Why not call it the "everything for nothing" party.

Foxy, I do not understand your question if Pauline Hanson is " a member" in the New Australia Party. In this political space there are many migrants, many human rights activists, many internationalists, many atheists, many REAL progresive people. This political space is extremely selective, it prefers politicians with high standards. In this space the candidates should be like YOU, not like Pauline Hanson. Every one knows it. Do not worry about Pauline Hanson but worry for other things.

Ludwig,
Antonios "Why do you say this? Can you explain a little more why you think so poorly of this new party"
OK! What is the meaning from prefernces? We prefer the A party , and not the B party ,or not the C party because we think that the A party can promote better the national interests that it will be esier for us to cooperate with it and promote in higher degree our goals. When they decided to give their preference to COALITION and not to ALP as does the Green Party they decided it because they believe that the COALITION promotes better their goals then the ALP.
Realy? Do you believe that COALITION IS CLOSER TO New Australia Party than the ALP? Do you believe that COALISION promote better our social, environment,Democracy, or other major national or international problems than ALP? Do you realy think that COALITION care more for labor's rights, for our environment, for Aborigines rights, for migrants rights, for peace and democracy than the ALP?
COME ON LUDWIG WHAT HAPPENED WITH YOU? Do not you know that this kind of ideas have no chance in the political space between ALP and Greens? I am a voter of this space, Labor for Parliament Greens for Senate. Do you think we will allow a party which prefer COALITION THAN ALP, A CONSERVATIVE PARTY TO DAMAGE THE ALP OR GREENS?
Ludwig, I think you was once upon a time part of this space and you know what kind of people guard it!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Antonios, I still don’t understand why you are so concerned about New Australia ‘allocating’ preferences, or touting a slight preference, for the Coalition over Labor.

Preferences are determined by individual voters and how they fill in their ballot papers. Parties and candidates can only suggest how voters might allocate their preferences.
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/howpreferenceswork.htm

It’s understandable that any party would have some preference for one or other of the liblabs, while at the same time being fundamentally opposed to their philosophies or methodologies.

You said that “Their goal is to damage the ALP and mainly THE GREENS.”

Well…yes. Of course it is! But if they look like becoming a successful party due to a high level of community support, and hence successful in damaging other parties, then these other parties are likely to adjust their relevant policies accordingly. So if they all do a green shift as a result, it’ll be good, yes!

And if New Australia is more strongly aligned with the Coalition than is apparent at the moment, then the same green shift should happen with that major party if the new party gathers a high level of support.

So no matter which way you look at it, if they can garner support for policies that steer us away from our continuous-growth addiction and towards a demand < sustainable-supply-capability regime, with plenty of essential resources being left in reserve for hard times, and a healthy environment and high quality of life being maintained, and all the other stuff that they have put forward, then it’s got to be a good thing.

Ludwig noticed I have missed a few questions. This is due to me being time poor + the word limit here:

(1) Re members, yes we need to get 500 members to register. Obviously its very hard to start a new party, we will see what happens. If it doesn't work out then we are back to having just the Greens who will again get around 10% of the vote and thus another 3.5 years of inaction on climate, etc.

(2) Re Political Donations, yes its a problem but no we don't have any particular policy on it. There is no good reason for this...we just haven't got around to it. Feel free to submit one. (We don't have anything on indigenous affairs either while your at it)

(3) Re preferences to Coalition (AFTER Greens / Dems) instead of ALP the logic was that we already have an environmental party that preferences the ALP - The Greens. So we thought we would go the other way with a view to attracting voters who would not like their preferences going to Labor. (This pre-supposes that the Libs and ALP are equally bad on issues we care about and might have to change)

The point of trying to create this party is that 90% of people will not vote for the Greens. POSSIBLY NewAustralia could attract people who don't like the Greens Tax, Defence, Welfare and Immigration policies. This would lead to an increase in the overall environmental vote: 10% Greens and x% NewAustralia. Sure, its a long shot. (I have tried doing how to vote cards for the Greens and Dems and that didn't do much good.)

(4) Funding issues: The funding comes from shifting spending - Roads to Rail, Defence to Education, Private Health to Public Health.

(5) Private health insurance rebate: Providing health funding via the insurance companies is inherently inefficient as each company has to spend money on their own execs, advertising, etc.

Thanks for all the feedback, its all good stuff and makes us think how we pitch the message.

Cheers,
Alan.

i got as far as:

"Note that the party founder and executive retain the right to veto major policy changes"

bottom of the front page on the internet site.

seems facism is becoming the topic de jeur amongst conservatives these days.

Dear Whistler,

What's with your obsession and 'facism?'

You've seem to have only the one 'song,'
to sing - and you keep singing it on
every thread - no matter what the topic is.

It's getting a bit tedious. Do us all
a favour - and learn something new to contribute!

That's not even half an answer, NewAustralia.

>>(5) Private health insurance rebate: Providing health funding via the insurance companies is inherently inefficient as each company has to spend money on their own execs, advertising, etc.<<

OK, so that accounts for 10%.

We are still $6 billion-plus out of pocket.

The idea, you suggest, is:

>>The funding comes from shifting spending - Roads to Rail, Defence to Education, Private Health to Public Health.<<

But if you have persuaded people that there is no point in taking out Private Health Insurance - or made it ridiculously unprofitable to do so - then there will be no money to transfer.

I failed to make this point clearly in my last post, so let me see if I can rephrase it so that it is more obvious.

If I (and 10 million others) spend $700 a year on my Private Health Insurance, the government puts in an extra $300.

That's $10 billion all up.*

The Health Funds have expenses of around 10% of this figure, so that's $9 billion that actually goes into the hospital system. It pays for beds, it pays for surgery, it pays doctors and nurses and ancillary staff. etc. etc.

You make it unattractive to take out Private Health Insurance.

So, nobody does.

You get back the $3 billion, sure, which you can dump into the Public Health system.

But the hospital system as a whole is $6 billion out of pocket.

It was previously provided by policyholders. It doesn't exist any more. So you can't shift it to the Public system, because it isn't there.

The demand for services rises every year, as does the cost of providing them.

Where is the missing $6bn coming from? And how will it continue to be funded in future years?

(Clue: no country in the world has yet made a success out of universal free health services.)

*note: the actual figures are a little higher than this, but I use round numbers to keep it simple.

We don't need another green party. It will only split the green vote and further reduce its influence.

The Greens have been putting in the hard yards for years and are steadily increasing their percentage of the vote at every election. They deserve the green vote and are the only group in the foreseeable future to have any chance of doing something constructive with it.

As you said, Alan, nobody agrees with every policy in a party's platform. Why don't you get over your discontent with some of their policies and get behind the Greens and support them as the only realistic alternative we have to the major parties.

Your policies are so similar to the Greens that you'll achieve nothing but fracture the green vote by setting up another party, which is the last thing we need. If you want to do something really useful for the environmental movement, why don't you contribute to Bob Brown's current campaign and save him from losing his senate seat. His is the best voice the environment has in Australia. If he goes, we're really in trouble.

Ludwig,

I agree that preferential voting should be a matter of choice, but politicians of all kinds maintain that that it is the best and fairest (the way it is) and there is no chance of change.

With reference to voters having control over their preferences; you forgot to say that voters have control over their preferences under the current system.

The cards handed out by parties are they way THEY want us to cast our preferences after their deals with other parties and candidates. Too many lazy voters go along with it, but I and, I’m sure, many others, make up their own minds. I don’t recall ever having voted the way my preferred party or independent wanted me to vote with regard to preferences. Politicians are the last people we should be taking notice of.

I don't think I'll be joining of voting for the new party by the way.

Remember that bloke we had on day after day pounding his new party before the last Federal election? I can't remember his name, or what he called the party.

Ludwig,
Many times the programs are used only as marketing tools, there are many ways to avoid to realize them.
For me, most times the political programs are marketing tools or word games!
I am interested what is back from the programs, the real goals the real consequenses on the parties I support, Greens and ALP.
From the moment the New Australia Party will damage Greens and ALP and parallel it prefers the Coalition automatic I am against it.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Scrap health rebate: Treasury
Leo Shanahan
The Age, February 24, 2009

THE private health insurance rebate paid to millions of Australians is very poor policy and should be dumped, according to a confidential briefing to Treasurer Wayne Swan.

Documents obtained by The Age reveal that Treasury, in one of its first briefings to the Rudd Government after its 2007 election win, urged Mr Swan to seriously consider scrapping the rebate. The briefing said the billions of dollars lost annually to the rebate would be better spent on public hospitals.

The Age has also learned that Health Minister Nicola Roxon has been advised on options for scrapping the rebate, with discussion papers going to cabinet at least twice last year.

.....

In its November 2007 briefing, the Treasury told Mr Swan: "You should give serious consideration to the future of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. This rebate represents very poor policy.

There is no doubt that its $3 billion annual cost to revenue could deliver far better health outcomes if directed to additional capacity in public hospitals."

- Maybe Treasury are idiots as well?

Cheers,
Alan.

so whats your opinion on pensions?

i would note more questions but seemingly multi t-asking means,the rest of the questions dont get reply

so there we are how your party feel about 27 billion spent on pensioners...compared to govt spending an extra 27 billion as it does today of super...

arnt we burdond twice..[now paying both for todays pensions..[as well as tomorrows pensions in the form of super..[leveraged to gift wealth to the elites...to the total of 54 billion per year]...just to avoid some future pension payments..equating to 27 billion in todays dollars

is this subsidy to the wealthy susss or sustainable...what has the 27 billion subsidy to the stock speculators,recieving todays dollars...[for what effectivly is 4 percent increase in wealth...only..[..over the 20 years..since keating gave it to the elites gambeling in the market place]..to do with govt

i keep it simple for you..[making some infurances you can chose to ignore or expand on...while were at it how you feel about coorperate welfare..[like govt subsidising drugs...so people can buy them for a few bucks...simply because some docters voted them..to get govt subsidy

but i digress..[lets just talk about the gift by govt..to the wealthy of 27 billion each year...for investment into stock gambeling

“We don't need another green party. It will only split the green vote and further reduce its influence.”

Bronwyn, I appreciate your concerns. But it would be nice if we had a REAL green party in the first place!!....instead of a very pale pseudogreen mob that basically allows the liblabs to continue running the country in a grossly and ever more unsustainable manner, without even protesting about the most obvious factor – absurdly high population growth! The Greens are tinkering around the edges and ignoring the proverbial elephant in the living room.

I don’t know if New Australia will trigger the Greens to get their backsides into gear or whether their policies are right in terms of the most urgent thing of all – gearing our society towards a sustainable future, but I sure do know that the Greens need an almighty boot up the collective quoit. (And as you know, this perspective comes from me as a former Qld Greens member and state candidate).

Yes, NA could simply dilute the Green vote and thus aid the Coalition, which is traditionally a little further removed from the Greens than Labor in the minds of the voter. But crikey, something has got to be done!

It seems that it is impossible to reform the Greens from within. If it hasn’t happened by now, then it ain’t likely….or at least not until Bob Brown departs the scene! Ohh, if only Bob could get his head around the core of the population / sustainability issue!!

What we desperately need is a party that holds the concept of quickly achieving a sustainable society at its core and gears everything towards this paradigm. I’m not sure that NA is doing this – the concept of sustainability seems to be a bit incidental to them at present. So they could dilute the Green vote and consequently extend the life of our antisustainability-oriented political paradigm.

But they could also act as the vehicle for greatly improving the situation.

Do you really want an answer to that, Alan?

>>Maybe Treasury are idiots as well?<<

It didn't escape my notice that you did not actually address the points I made, but referred me instead to a source that made precisely the same mistake that I was pointing out.

Your training as a politician is clearly bearing fruit.

But the "$3 billion annual cost to revenue could deliver far better health outcomes if directed to additional capacity in public hospitals" is not at issue. I have not at any stage denied that this money would be retained for whatever wall the government chose to... point it at.

It is the $7 billion contributions that are placed in jeopardy, six of which find their way into the hospital system anyway. The other billion is spent on jobs in the Private Health Industry, which you would also apparently be happy to put on the scrapheap.

What, if anything, do you propose to do about that?

This is not "policy detail".

It is fundamental, this-is-what-we-stand-for stuff.

Ludwig

I hear what you're saying and agree with it to some extent. I do think the Greens though are a much darker shade of green than you give them credit for. Just because they haven't been successful in reigning in the growth-at-all-costs policies of the Coalition and Labor doesn't mean they haven't been trying to. Their numbers in both houses have always been small and their ability to gain media attention is comparitively limited.

I think if you followed their voting patterns carefully, you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of them supporting population growth policies. I doubt they would have voted for the baby bonus for example or for increasing skilled migration to the high levels of the recent past. I'm sure they were opposed to these moves at the time, but whether they were successful in obtaining a media grab to highlight their opposition is another thing entirely.

Population growth is a huge problem on a world scale, but when considering Australia's domestic situation, within which the Greens operate, I don't see it as the huge overbearing issue that you do. I don't believe in encouraging population growth, but as far as prioritising policies I don't see that actively reducing it needs to be at the top of the Greens platform.

If we adopted the sustainable practices the Greens have been advocating for years, our population levels wouldn't be impacting as negatively as they are. A strong decentralisation policy and strong policies to protect our soil, water, air and forests would overcome our current population pressures.

If the Greens, under the practised leadership of astute and experienced politicians like Bob Brown and Christine Milne, are still having trouble cutting through, what makes you think some Johnny-come-lately group of unknown amateurs is suddenly going to make a difference? It won't.

All this group would do is take votes from the Greens and very likely prevent them from taking seats they might otherwise have finally wrestled from the major parties. We don't need two struggling green parties. We need one.

Somebody posted earlier that one of New Australia Party's policies would see all recipients of unemployment benefits having to work for dole, or at least that was my understanding of that person's post.

I've searched the New Australia Party website in relation to their welfare policies and cannot find mention of this. Could someone supply a link to this "work for the dole" policy at their website please?
Aime.

their defence policies would leave us virtually defenseless

The Democrats aren't dead... just sleeping. One day a handsome prince (ss) will come along...
www.newdemocrats.org.au/
So what tag will this party wear? I voted Dem because I prefer social Liberalism (private ownership, small business) to social democrats (government ownership) but hey. The Laboural party were supposed to be social Dems, and for the last 20 odd years they've been neo-liberals; very confusing.
I agree with the ideology of their defence policy; Australia -and the rest of the world- should concentrate on defensive, rather than offensive weapons. So why do we need fighter/bombers at all?
Change the name of the Navy to Coast Guard, Army to Ground Security, and Air Force to Coast Watch. Let the world know we will defend our border vigorously, but we will NOT invade other countries.
We just balanced the budget, and made our land more secure.

Hi all,

A few quick responses:

@Private Health: If the govt re-directed the ~$3.5 Billion it spends subsidising private health insurance buying health care directly that would be ~$3.5 Billion the private health companies don't need to pay out. Private health insurance would not necessarily cost more than now as it would not need to cover so much. Some folks would drop their cover and self-insure instead, which is their choice. There would be less jobs doing admin in private health industry - but more jobs providing care. I know what I would prefer!

@Defence: If you look at the defence force we propose (http://www.newaustralia.net/defence.html)I think it is pretty silly to say that we would be "virtually defenseless". If you want "virtually defenseless" have a look at the frigates we have now, or better still HMAS Kanimbla & Manoora!

@Splitting the Greens: The Greens are committed to non-violence and pacifism. The pictures of defence hardware on our site would scare them all off in no time! They also want to increase tax and spending not just shift it. The point of NewAustralia is to attract votes from disaffected Lib/Lab voters and thereby increase the net Environmental vote. Note our preferences would go first to the Greens & Dems so will probably increase the chance of getting more Green senate seats.

@Super: No changes planned here by us.

@Labor & the environment: I think the axing of the Solar rebate says it all really, plus the massive Carbon Polluters Reward Scheme. Then their is the Vic Labor govt building desal plants and draining the Murray with pipes back to Melbourne, etc, etc. I see no reason to preference Labor ahead of the libs on envionmental issues at the moment.

@Welfare: See http://www.newaustralia.net/society_welfare.html.

Cheers,
Alan.

Bronwyn,

I am a Greens member and support most of their policies but I find it perplexing and extremely annoying that they persist in ignoring the population issue with arguments along the lines you noted in your response to Ludwig. If you have read most of the reasoned posts on this thread you can see why population is THE major reason - with profligate consumption a close second - why we will never, ever be able to prevent the sustained and largely irreversible destruction of our environment and along with it its productive capacity so long as we don't at the very least stabilize our own population growth. Since our per capita consumption is amongst the highest in the world we owe it to the rest of the world to do so too.

I might add that it is not an either or argument. We HAVE to curtail population growth AS WELL AS material consumption.

The Green's population policy is ... well alright but it's immigration policy is sickeningly naive and unrealistic as it implies a complete opening of doors to refugees and other non-economic migrants. Absolutely suicidal - certainly for the environment and for a reasonably unimpoverished existence for the existing inhabitants of this continent.

I do not by any means discount the New Australia Party as a possible alternative if the Greens don't come to their senses. As Ludwig says ...a good boot up the?? is needed.

Bronwyn, you have inadvertently outlined the great problem with the Greens; they are only addressing half of the equation of human impact on our environment and on our own future wellbeing, and just ignoring the other half.

It is USELESS for them to address per-capita consumption and “sustainable practices” while just letting our population continue to grow at the most absurd rate without protesting very loudly. What they would effectively be doing, if they were successful with this strategy, is to actually facilitate the importation of more and more people and hence an ever-greater impact on our environment and an ever-reducing quality of life for all of us, while making it ever-harder to turn the situation around towards a genuinely sustainable future.

The Greens are NOT putting forward sustainable policies for as long as they don’t address the population growth issue. They're talking through their quoit if they think they are addressing sustainability!!

They are working with the devil!! They're aiding and abetting the liblabs!

They are so far off-track that we really do – DESPERATELY – need a new party. A new party running on a platform of achieving genuine sustainability quickly would effectively be very different indeed to the Greens.

Few people in the general community have got much time for the Greens. But I reckon the concept of achieving a sustainable future quickly, as opposed to rushing towards the cliff, could be sold to the community and engender great support…especially the policy of reducing immigration down to net zero.

Here’s hoping that New Australia will see this imperative and embrace it, above all else.

Alan, having your cake and eating it is not normally an option when it comes to policy.

>>Private Health: If the govt re-directed the ~$3.5 Billion it spends subsidising private health insurance buying health care directly...<<

Your earlier post indicated you intended to follow Treasury's suggestion that:

"[the] $3 billion annual cost to revenue could deliver far better health outcomes if directed to additional capacity in public hospitals"

Which is your policy? To direct these unpaid subsidies to increasing public hospital capacity, or to lowering the cost of the Funds' purchases?

If the former, my questions still stand: the present Private Health Insurance system would collapse under the weight of a - minimum - 43% price rise. Is the destruction of the Health Funds your intention?

If the latter, what is the point of removing a subsidy at the point of sale, only to reintroduce it in the purchasing process? Who wins from that? Certainly not the Public system.

I'm not sure how a purchasing subsidy might work in real life, but it certainly would increase, rather than decrease, administration costs.

As for this little throwaway line...

>>There would be less jobs doing admin in private health industry - but more jobs providing care. I know what I would prefer!<<

The money to pay for these folk comes from the Private Health Funds themselves. This would also signal that "subsidising private health insurance buying health care directly" is not your intention, since the cost of care is not a direct substitution for "jobs doing admin" in Private Health Insurance Funds.

Incidentally, a far faster way to deliver more jobs providing care would be to reduce the wasteful administrative overheads in the hospital system itself.

But you know how it is with public servants. Once you give them an office chair, it takes a nuclear explosion to get them out again into the productive workforce.

I think a genuinely honest and open audit of our Public Health System is long overdue, and would shock most people. The majority of the Hospital costs are associated with the major specialists and surgeons, the contracts they enjoy are on a par with those of the financial sector. Use of theatres, wards, staff etc, all provided for their private customers, free of charge, plus monetary returns that reflect their "connections" rather than their skill or labour, just for starters. That is the only area in health NOT to be cut back, far from it, indeed!
I can't help but wonder what would happen if we hired some o/s Doc's on more normal contracts, or even PAYE, what all the well-heeled vunder-menschen would do? It would certainly lower OUR costs.

maybe its time govt got out of all health..the state govt dental sceme is a scam..[privatuise the lot,and just insure the people with health care costs [per head/[per-year up to say 3000 in any year..the health indiustry either meets it or not...but they want the business theyt meet the dollars the patients are able to meet

lok at the total heath subsidy[figure out whats being spend now and divide it up ammoung the lower income levels of the common weal[the current sysytem isnt working[and we know its easiuer to keep us healthy than cure the disease]...

im against the eugenics aspect[clearly thats the current policy[every day in usa alone the equivelent of 5 jumbo jets die from adverse reaction to perscribed drugs..[we would have a simular equivenency in oz[or maybe higfher because of govt subsidy of drugs

much more attention should be paid to the doses needed to cure number[i know that the current medication for many subsidised mnedicines is 1/60 meaning 60 people need to take the medicine[subsidised medicin [for one CURE to result...

drugs arnt helping and yet they are one of the highest cost..[add..is well known to be dietry related..[the lsd they give the kids is only making them phycotic,..many of the tranquilisers are killing people[prozac alone has killed over 12,000..

one in 10 hostpital admmissions is drug adversae reaction..[drug related..[one in ten result in death..booze is right up there

Big words, Maximillion.

>>...the contracts [major specialists and surgeons] enjoy are on a par with those of the financial sector. Use of theatres, wards, staff etc, all provided for their private customers, free of charge, plus monetary returns that reflect their "connections" rather than their skill or labour<<

Evidence?

Thought not.

NewAustralia, your website states that Labor's $100 Billion defence Plan 'will force our neighbours to increase their military spending to neutralise the threat that the ADF will pose'.
Wake up! Our neighbours forces are much larger than us already.

As for cancelling the JSF and ordering the F15E or even the Sukhoi 35, how would that be good for defence? The design of the F15E is 36 years old, while the more modern SU35 could cause problems in the spare parts department. The FSU is still not what we could call an ally so, depending on the mood at the time, Putin or his successors could block any parts needed here.
The link on your website regarding cheaper deltic submarines points to the old Soviet Kilo class. Again you advocate using old designs. As a maritime nation, we should have nuclear subs to seriously and effectively patrol our vast coastline and associated zones. Also to carry out covert ops if attacked or threatened by one of our 'neighbours'.

On the subject of our neighbours - have you any idea of the size and capability of their forces? Indonesia and India could knock out our present defences and what about China? We need to be strong and up-to-date in case the worst happens.

Grim asks 'why do we need fighter/bombers at all?' From a defensive POV, if the hordes are hitting our beaches, we can take out their landing craft and support vessels, though we would need something with greater missile capacity than The Pig (F 111) to be effective.

Pericles, it's easy to be a sneerer, isn't it?
Most of the details are no longer available to the public, "commercial in confidence", and FOI is rejected every time, now, why do you suppose that is?
I have seen reports and costings a few years ago, through connections at the Health Dpt, and have had some highly illegal conversations with friends at the ATO, so am quite happy with my statements.
Can you prove I'm wrong?
I'd suggest rather than curling your lip, you actually research it and refute me if you think I am incorrect!

You were probably - quite reasonably - expecting a sneer, Maximillion. Which is why you interpreted my straightforward question as such.

But it was actually just a question: you made an assertion, where's the evidence?

>>Most of the details are no longer available to the public, "commercial in confidence", and FOI is rejected every time, now, why do you suppose that is?<<

Free intrepretation: I couldn't find any evidence for my statements, therefore there must be a conspiracy to keep them secret. Not particularly convincing, I'm afraid.

Incidentally, what did the FOI application(s) cover, and whom did you ask?

>>I have seen reports and costings a few years ago, through connections at the Health Dpt, and have had some highly illegal conversations with friends at the ATO, so am quite happy with my statements.<<

Connections in the Health Department, friends at the ATO. Can none of them provide any evidence?

>>Can you prove I'm wrong? I'd suggest rather than curling your lip, you actually research it and refute me if you think I am incorrect!<<

OK, I've researched everything available on the internet, and I have found absolutely nothing to support your propositions. So that now makes two of us.

But fair's fair, I don't have the inside scoop that you have. So how about you simply share some of the data you have gathered from your contacts at the Health Department and your friends at the ATO? You don't have to give their names, so they won't get into trouble.

I'm prepared to take your word that it is the truth, honest.

Pericles, I usually enjoy reading your posts, but your supercilious sneering belittles you.
Common sense would tell you no-one was passing around data, it was “look at this”, and others breaking the confidentiality laws by discussing what had passed across their screens, and disgusted them!
I followed up certain things with FOI applications, 4yrs ago, and was refused on seven requests, it cost me an arm and a leg, but no, I have no records now, I destroyed them all in frustration and disgust.
As for your clever denial of sneering, again, you embarrass yourself.
Never-the-less, I can accept everyone has a bad day, and I’ll look forward to more interactions.
You have a mind I can (mostly) respect, but I notice you didn’t deny that disagreeing with you automatically made me ignorant, - hubris, dear boy, hubris.

Austin Powerless: I don't think you are right to dismiss the F15E as "36 years old". Sure the first ever 15E flew 36 years ago but look at the latest aircraft to carry the label - F15K (South Korea) and F-15SG (Singapore). Look at the specs - these aircraft are not to be sneezed at! They have far better performance than the JSF in everything except frontal X-band radar cross section and that is of declining relevance as the Russians sell their new VHF radar-band radars to all and sundry.

The Su-35 is brand new and Air Power Australia rates it as the second best aircraft available behind the F-22 Raptor. As for parts we state that all consumables would have to be made here. China and India are licensed to make entire planes so that should be feasible. Part availability is a huge issue for any aircraft including the JSF. Rumour has it that many JSF parts will not be maintained locally.

Re 'Old Kilo' submarines on that link you were looking at (http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/eng/project/submarine/noatompl/index.htm) please scroll to the bottom for the latest stuff. Suggest also look up the new Amur class on the Federation of American Scientists site and other authoritative sites.

Cheers,
Alan.

Pericles,

I don't follow your reasoning. If we wanted to cancel the private health insurance (PHI) subsidy and spend the money on (say) solar panels then you would be right. The total cost of health care covered by the PHI's would stay the same while the subsidy would go - so premiums would have to rise 30%+.

However, we propose that the $3.5 billion now spent on subsidising PHI's would be spent on providing health care that the PHI's now pay for. This means that there is $3.5 billion less health care the PHI's need to buy. For example PHI's now cover dental. Out plan is to use part of the $3.5 billion to provide free essential dental care.

So the PHI's miss out on a $3.5 billion subsidy, but then have $3.5 billion less health care to buy - assuming the public and private provide equal care per dollar.

I guess your view on the PHI subsidy depends on your view of whether health delivery is best delivered by the private or public sectors. If you like the US system then you would maximise PHI involvement in health provision.

Cheers,
Alan.

Austin, you appear to be someone with some knowledge in this area; perhaps you would give your opinion of an alternative to fighter/bombers.
What about an interlocking grid of land based missile defence posts? I realise it would be far more expensive (at least in the short term) however:
The money would all be spent at home.
It would be a clear indication of defensive, rather offensive strategy.
Reduced running costs and upgrade costs.
Small bases would require small townships to service -increased decentralisation and job opportunities.
Permanent reinforced bunkers could be complimented with mobile (truck) batteries.
I sincerely believe in the 21st century we should be looking at the real possibility of an end to war. The first step must be to stop threatening our neighbours, while maintaining a sensible defensive capability.
Who came up with the idea that "The best defence is offence" anyway, George Armstrong Custer?
'Pre emptive strike' is just a pretty way to describe king hitting.

That much is clear, Alan.

>>I don't follow your reasoning<<

Nor I yours.

>>The total cost of health care covered by the PHI's would stay the same<<

But you have reduced the (Private Health Insurance) product content, and raised the price. This is likely to cause a decrease in participation, which will inevitably reduce the amount of money available from PHI to soak up the pressure on the Public system.

Has this been taken into account in your calculations?

I suspect not, but since you are quite understandably not in a position to apply yourself to any detail, we will have to differ on our opinion of the value of the policy.

Nevertheless, it would be perhaps a good idea to explain at least the philosophy behind your position.

Is your party actively opposed to the concept of Private Health Insurance?

Because there's nothing more certain that the system as it stands will collapse without the subsidy.

Which will once again leave Private Health Insurance available only to the rich, who would be willing to pay twice or three times the present amount, i) because they can and ii) because they would perceive that waiting times for the Public system would border on dangerous.

The present system may not be idealogically perfect, but a million Australians earning less than $26,000p.a. presently carry PHI.

You might like to start practising in front of a mirror what you would say to these people, when you make the product accessible only to rich folk.

A Party that favours the wealthy?

Not a good look.

NewAustralia, the Sukhoi 35 has been around since the 80s so I wouldn't call it new. Like the F15, it may have gone though a few refits but that doesn't make it state-of-the-art. If the 35 year old design is a better performer than the brand new JSF, why would the Yanks be spending billions on its development? And wouldn't the very fact that it was a new design put it ahead of a refitted old design?
As for us stating that all consumables (by that I assume you include all spare parts) be made here, how's that going to happen? I've had Japanese motorcycles and cars that have required parts always made in Japan. If we can't make the Japanese allow us to manufacture the spares, what chance have we with the Russians?
Most importantly, we have to stay ahead with the latest technology merely to keep up with our neighbours. I already mentioned Indonesia, India and China. I presume that you are aware off their strengths. If Poland had modernised and mechanised its army, the Germans wouldn't have overrun them so easily.

Grim, I wouldn't suggest an alternative to fighter/bombers, my post was in their favour. Fixed missile deployments cannot be moved to where the action is. Fighter/bombers can. I also would like to see an end to war, but we have to be able to defend ourselves from aggressive neighbours. I don't see how we are threatening them or why you think we are.
'Pre emptive strike' can also mean not getting caught with your pants down while 'The best defence is offence' is certainly true if you want to come out ahead. If you are about to be attacked, do you wait for it or make your own move?
Here's the saying I would agree with - 'Peace through superior firepower'.
Actually, Custer said, 'Holy mackerel, look at all those goddam injuns'.

Hey Austin, as a westerner, I doubt Custer was worried about being in the fish.
The problem with "peace through superior firepower" is that everyone wants it. We saw how MAD (Mutally Assured Destruction) a race like that can get; Even without a clearly defined enemy of anything like equal calibre, the US stills spends more than half it's budget on defence.
I have no doubt whatsoever that there are many countries on the planet which would feel much safer if the US kept it's armaments within it's own territorial borders, rather than roaming around the high seas.
The main reason Australia has to spend so much desperately needed cash on 'Defence' is to fulfil some perceived obligations to play the role of deputy sheriff.
If we grant every country the right to exist as we do, we have to accept they aren't going to enjoy being stood over by the biggest kid in school any more than we would.

Grim, when all is said and done, the only way that we could afford not to upgrade our defence capabilities would be if all other regional forces did the same and, in some cases, cut back.
I would be an advocate for unilateral disarmament if we could trust all others to disarm but human nature says that they wouldn't.
So, like it or not, I'd stick with superior firepower.

BTW, there is a new sheriff over there and a new deputy sheriff over here but has much else changed?

Austin Powerless: I suggest you have a read of this: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html re JSF vs Flankers or other. As noted previously APA favours the F-22, but unfortunately they are not for sale to Australia.

Su-27 has been around since the 80's. Su-35 <> Su-27.

Pericles: We are not philosophically opposed to PHI we just want maximum 'bang per buck' for health spending. For now we will stick with the Treasury advise on this matter, plus analysis such as this: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/welfare-for-the-rich-makes-for-a-sick-system-20090429-and1.html.

Cheers,
Alan.

NewAustralia,the Sukhoi 35 is a development of the 27 and equates to a refit.
Besides that, you haven't been able to address the spare parts issue.

Youe wrote 'APA favours the F-22, but unfortunately they are not for sale to Australia.' so what makes you think that dealing with the Russkies would be easier?

hey Austin, the musicians have changed but the song doesn't change much; and with respect, that's probably because they think the same way you do.
Every one wants superior fire power, because as you say it would be stupid to trust anyone else to do the right thing.
So everyone is locked into spiralling 'defence' costs, all trying to have 'superior fire power' because if everyone else spends money, we have to, too.
Imagine if we had a shore based, short range missile defence shield. Such a major investment in infrastructure could not be overturned by a change of government, so it would be obvious we would not be a threat to anyone, even if we wanted to be, IF we gave up all long range ships and planes at the same time.
The big stumbling block is that Australia would have to lead, instead of follow. We would have to be pro active, instead of reactive.
We'd have to try thinking for ourselves, instead of letting the US do all our thinking for us.

Pericles: I read this on the train yesterday morning and thought of you!

Rich Profit from a sick system: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/rich-profit-from-a-sick-system-20090616-cghz.html.

Austin Powerless: I will stick with the APA analysis on the late model flankers. The basic aerodynamics are tried and tested (and way better than the JSF) and the avionics are all cutting edge. And we could fit different 'Western' avionics if we wanted. As I said before Sukhoi licenses HAL in India and the Chinese to manufacture whole planes so I would not have thought making some parts here would be an issue. Would they sell it to us? Obviously I don't know but they do sell to everyone else, including China which you would think could be a major threat to Russia militarily. I note the USA bought to Su-27 from Russia in 1995.

Grim: You are on the money here with your 'defensive only' defence force. It turns out that offensive systems (Assault Ships, Destroyers, Long Range subs, Tank battalions, heavy lift aircraft, etc) are much more expensive than defensive systems. So for the same money you can be BETTER defended with 'defensive only' systems than if you had a mix of offensive and defensive. Note that current estimates for the life of a US destroyer in a 'hot' war with China are around 20 minutes. Australia's proposed destroyers won't be around long enough to defend Australia in a serious war.

I would use medium range subs and aircraft to deliver the missiles as they can do this as hostile forces approach the coast rather than after they get here. without a blue-water surface navy this is not a threat to anyone else. (see: http://www.newaustralia.net/defence_peace.html)

Cheers,
Alan.