The problem is simple:

1-The worthlessness of a single-party opposition;
If representatives from ALL the parties could sit in question time, there would actually be some policy proposed- as it's purely only a binary house, yes/no for its own sake is what you will mostly get.

2- The fact that we don't actually vote for Tony Abbot- he was put into parliament by the largest minority (a couple thousand) in his local area, whose only choice was to either vote for Tony (possibly hoping at the time his vote would help Malcolm Turnbull) or not vote for Liberal. He only became leader of the party from a couple of votes in his own party.

3- The sheer idiocy of voting in a random bunch of people and letting them assign their own portfolios (and reassign them when things go bad)- regardless of how little or how unsuited for the role they are.
If we could at least vote for who would govern each ministry, there would be at least more pressure for whoever steps forward to have something credible to add to it (at least we'd actually know who would fill the role).

Personally, with politicians like these I really don't see why the public (who actually might be sincerely concerned about the issue) is somehow less qualified to decide than the mad monk.
And I daresay when both parties are waffling on about making a marketing, crediting and taxation system for hypothetically NOT-using carbon, the lunatics really ARE running the asylum!

Shadow Minister: "That scientists not directly involved in AGW research are not competent to comment on global warming is very tenuous."

No its not. Here, have a listen to Peter Doherty on climate change. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/06/26/2609568.htm (I can't find a transcript - sorry.) Doherty should meet an acceptable definition of scientist for both of us: Nobel prize winner and Laureate Professor. A little way in, he describes his experiences in reading peer reviewed published papers in subjects he isn't familiar with. Surprise, surprise - it is no different to the rest of us. He doesn't know the jargon, he isn't familiar with the concepts, he hasn't see the math used quite that way before. So you know where he says he gets his information? From lay scientific journals, such as New Scientist, Scientific American and so on. Just like you and I, as it happens.

Scientists aren't super intelligent beings. They get to where they are through unbelievable dedication in devoting decades their lives to studying one minute area. Sure in that area they are literally gods, but take them out of it and they just informed laymen, just like we plebs on OLO.

Shadow Minister: "I am perfectly comfortable with the science involved"

Fair enough.

Bazz: "I saw the photos of the boat down by the bow, people in the water and naval people in the water with them. It was a sensible thing to do to throw the children and themselves into the water unless you wanted to go down with the boat."

I used to sail and have hopped off more than a few boats. Some had capsized. I do not recall anybody throwing anything or anyone. They all stepped calmly off the boat and into the water. Since no witnesses say children where thrown, I guess the refugees must have done what the rest of us would have done in that situation, ie gently lowered their children into the water beside a waiting adult. I think you let your imagination get the better of you on occasion.

if its science it can be tested...repeated...as recording numbers arnt testing anything..its hard to say that a collection of numbers is science

yet we have these green/labourite no bodies...saying the science is in.when it clearly isnt..saying its science..yet not revealing the numbers..[which arnt science]..just numbers that observe/record..with no oversite..or public accountability..let alone media investigation..[largly they just publish the spin]

we have a ten degree of sepperation between day and night time temp..yet a two degree change means the reef is dead...a two degree change compared to the overnight /day time temp change of 10 degrees

yet you bl;ind labourite greenies cant se your being sold a new tax...a tax that allows the poluters to do what they have allways done..just pay money...via tax credits we gave them...to polute

its hard to see so many clever people sukked in./.but you want the tax thats great..it goes straight to imf..and the carbon securities traders like mr gore..who owns a carbon trading firm

the multinational banking cartel...lends your tax..to foreign nationals...building the next stage of the oindustrial evolution...using your tax..loaned at inytrest and under treasonous/ursurous terms...to do the next argentina..melt down..

when the lender obeys the conditions of the loans...and they lose their water rights ans sell off their public assets..to the so called mom and pop investers...

who largly hold less that 10 percent of any coorperation...while they largly are run by multinationals..cross holding other multinationals...mortgauged to the hilt..to the worlds bankers..and all you paid to blog bloggers can do is the two party division game

penny wrong..sure aint no scientist...did you notice the oggle she gave that chick..walking to her poluting areo plane...to fly to cop en haven..if any man did that...he would get pulled up quick smart...but thats the same reason..they sent her in to deliver the latest..two party tax/subsidy to big business excess

rstuart;
You should remember that these people had probably never seen the sea
before, or at least had no experience of small boats so they would
not necessarily react like you and me.

In any case all I saw was them in the water.
It seems likely they had retreated to the stern and jumped off from
there.
Thats what I would have done, not gone forward to the bow which might
well have been just about under.

examinator, still waiting for your nominations?

Spindoc,

sorry I don't mean to ignore you , I value your comments, or to overly emphasize my failing faculties, but what nominations? post me a thread please.