In the last election the major parties concentrated on boat people, debt and the personal characteristics of the leaders. It makes no sense to talk about debt without considering raising taxes to pay it. Even the Greens don't seem particularly concerned about uncontrolled population growth although they are concerned about sustainability. There are other things that the major parties don't talk about - world peace, the arms trade, education in critical thinking and civics, scientific research and development, separation of religion and state (I would like to see a discussion of the meaning of s. 116 of the Australian Constitution) and the nature and thrust of our foreign aid. I will be 88 next month and am concerned about the world my descendants will be living in. It was disappointing that Palmer got such a big vote - a lot of promises to various groups but no more concern with issues than the major parties. I would like to see taxation discussed rather than mere promises to cut taxes. A party running for office should specify what they want to do and admit that taxes may be necessary to fund what they want to do. I see nothing wrong in taxes being used as a tool for fairer distribution of resources.

Unfortunately, a lot of the minor and micro parties are what I consider cranks. Rise Up Australia seems motivated by anti-Muslim prejudice. Several Christian parties would like their brand of fundamentalism to dominate the political scene. Shooters, fishers, smokers, auto lovers etc. would like environmental restrictions removed so they could be freer to destroy the environment in pursuit of their particular leisure activity.

The Labor party was led by a man who had been bounced partly because he was difficult to work with. He got back in because he was more popular than the leader who displaced him. The party chose popularity over competence.

The Libs chose a man who specialised in negativity and apparently was more interested in gaining power than in participating in governing.

The recent federal election was the most meaningless one I have ever seen.

Quote "A party running for office should specify what they want to do"

This is in theory a good point but in practice it is worthless, unless there is a mechanism for lies or failing to do something, not withstanding unforeseen events.

Remember "No Carbon Tax"

We are going to be hostage to too many little independents looking for trade offs for there vote.

Good morning David f my first thought was this was another thread about the senate.
Sorry to see it is about your party,s vote and your pain.
Being from the party that lost the most may I recommend you consider why you and I suffer.
And my friend consider other ways to see what those who did not vote for us saw in us.

The recent federal election was the most meaningless one I have ever seen.
David F,
Meaningless ? Are you utterly devoid of any sense whatsoever ? It was an incredibly meaningful election as it was absolutely vital to rid this country of the most meaningless & incompetent administration ever in Australia.

Dear Belly,

I didn’t mean this thread to be about any party, and I don’t feel pain from the election. The election came about pretty much as predicted. My complaint was that important issues, or issues I consider important, weren’t discussed. Will Australia stand or fall on how we treat the boat people? Both Abbott and Rudd seem to agree that it would be good to be ‘tough’ on the issue.

However, our descendents will have to live or not be able to live in a world which will result from a lack of concern over what is happening to the environment.

I don’t feel about the Greens the way I think you feel about the Labor Party. It is just a means to an end. The end is to get certain policies considered. If some other party seems to serve that end better I would join that party.

I think any party which comes to power will inevitably become corrupt. In a two party system such as we have each party has an implicit interest in not obliterating the other party. On most issues the parties wind up not being too far apart. So real change seems to be impossible.

The two parties will implicitly cooperate in the physical destruction of Australia without much regard for the future.

Abbott said that climate change is crap, and Rudd, disregarding the carrying capacity of the land, wants a ‘big’ Australia.

I also feel that it is necessary to get rid of supernatural mumbojumbo to make rational judgements of policy. Rudd put chaplains in the schools of Queensland, and Howard made that a national policy. The chaplains in Queensland are mainly from Scripture Union, a fundamentalist Christian group. Access Ministries, a similar group, provides the chaplains for Victoria. Abbott is buddy-buddy with Pell who is worried that enough babies aren’t born and agrees with Abbott about climate change.

Abbott and Rudd share similar blindness, but the two of them were acceptable to the great majority of Australians.

A meaningful election would discuss the physical future of Australia.

david f,
The election was most meaningfull. We now have hope that some adults with responsibility will be in charge of the purse strings. Then that the illegal invaders will be stopped from trying to come here. If that happens you will be overjoyed with the lives saved, at least.

All one can do is support a party that promotes issues you think are important. The above mentioned issues are important to me, as is abolishing multiculturalism, if we want a cohesive society. Happenings in Europe and the ME should be a warning to us about accepting legal or illegal entrants that will not integrate. I have been arguing against high immigration and MC for 30 odd years and finally may get somewhere with MC, but a long way to go to get changes to immigration. Ludwig, similarly, has been arguing immigration and over population for many, many years.

I live in hope of some positive outcomes in the future. Although the massive debt we now have seems a very daunting obstacle.

Banjo,

".....We now have hope that some adults with responsibility will be in charge of the purse strings...."

Don't hold your breath - the present govt borrowed $800 million this week "already".

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australia-borrows-800m-whatever-2013-9

"....Then that the illegal invaders will be stopped from trying to come here...."

More pie in the sky....how do you suggest Mr Abbott and Co are going to do that?

Slogans can win an election, but.....

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/coalition-victory-fails-to-stop-boats/story-fn9qr68y-1226718874954

And we'll still have plenty of illegal invaders anyway. The Coalition hasn't mentioned any plans to stop the planes which is how most illegal invaders arrive.

Cheers,

Tony

Davidf, I agree with your analysis.

You make an interesting point about the minor and micro parties. They are (I presume) all pretty narrowly focussed on what they can achieve in their lines of interest in the short term, and thus are working against our longer term environmental health and good of society.

It presents a quandary: it could be argued that these parties are good for democracy and political diversity. Heaven knows we need to move away from the two big dinosaur parties. But it looks like it will actually reinforce short-term decisions and work against a healthy future.

I would love to know why the Sustainable Population Party did so poorly. In my experience of talking to a wide range of people over a period of more than a decade when I was doing vegetation management work and liaising with lots of property owners, miners and developers, was that there is indeed a great deal of concern out there about continuous high population growth and the worship of continuous growth in general.

Yes it was a meaningless election, as the new government will just continue with the same old manic-growth-pandering BS politics.

The only way that it could not have been a meaningless election is if Labor was to see the absolute need to change it evil ways and to embrace a sustainable future, as per Julia Gillard’s wishes and the long-time urgings of Kelvin Thomson and Bob Carr.

But alas, I see no sign of this under Albanese or Shorten.

Dear David F.,

I agree with you, this has been the least enlightening
and most dispiriting election campaign in Australian
history. We've had inadequate and scant political
information. We were deprived of serious analysis.
The contract that once existed between journalists and
politicians requiring a direct question to be honestly
answered seems to have been broken ages ago. No wonder
we've had a record informal vote of almost 6 per cent and
the success of micro-parties in the Senate.

Michelle Grattan points out in her article for The
Saturday Age, Sept. 14, 2013:

"Tony Abbott faces some big obstacles, from Indonesia's
opposition to key aspects of his "stop the boats"
strategy, securing the passage of legislation to scraping
the carbon emissions trading scheme, the mining tax, and
trying to implement his generous parental leave scheme,
to name just a few."

"The challenge for the next Labor leader, whoever he may be,
is to show that they're serious when they talk of making
the party more inclusive and reaching out to the broader
constituency. Currently both candidates have been party
to preselection decisions that reward patronage, not merit,
and both were senior figures through Labor's six years of
divided government. Their actions will speak louder than words."

Dear Banjo,

I think there should have been multiculturalism from the beginning. The English should not have forced the Aborigines onto mission stations which put their superstition on the Aborigines. The Aborigines had their own superstitions which were more compatible with their lifestyle.

A good way to eliminate the debt would be to raise taxes enough to pay it off. However, Murdoch and Rinehart back the Libs. They know that the Libs owe them big. Taxes will be kept low for them, and it would be political suicide for taxes to be kept low on them and raise taxes on others enough to pay off the debt. The debt will continue to grow.

Of course wages will be depressed for the Australian worker as there will be more 457 visas issued for Rinehart and other corporate interests that backed the Libs.

The environmental policies of Gillard which were responsible for national parks in the waters around Australia will possibly be negated by Abbott and his crew. If Rudd had won he quite possibly would not have seen that the ocean parks would have been monitored for violations. The heritage of Gillard would have been destroyed either way. Rudd pointed out that Gillard was a ‘childless woman’. That had no relevance to her competence as PM. It was only relevant to prejudiced noogieheads. Apparently many of them didn’t vote for him.

France and Bulgaria are aware of the damage that fracking can do to the aquifers and have banned it. There is enough opposition in the UK so that fracking is political unfeasible. It is still open slather in Australia.

The fauna, flora and soil of this great land will continue to be destroyed. The population will be encouraged to grow even more past the levels of sustainability.

Since I will be 88 next month I probably won’t be around to see the reckoning. However, it will come.

Parts of the Catholic Church are much more enlightened than Abbott’s buddy, Cardinal Pell. The following poem appeared in the 09 September 2013 issue of Eureka Street, the Jesuit magazine.

Unholy Sonnet
XIII
Strip out my heart, three-personed Gina;
As yet but truck, prospect and seek to mine;
That we may improve, export and ourselves refine
Your ore, to the US, Europe, and 'specially China.
I, like a usurp'd town, ignore union dues,
And admit labour, from all quarters,
Let them all flock, to the mineral slaughter,
That holds us captive, lest wealth you lose.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be Rineharted,
But have unwise ties to ideas green;
Divorce them, untie, or render them obscene,
Take me to you, make me minehearted,
Except you extract me, I never shall be free,
Nor ever rich, unless you ravish me.
P.S. Cottier
(John Donne-over)

I did but see it passing by, and yet I love it, 'til it (or I) die.
Yet, I do not see us going 'quietly into the night',
Those of us who see the light; though it may be an earnest fight.

Dear david f,
I would not be so pessimistic, or at least a little more optimistic.
Abbott has barely stepped to the breech, and we know better than to expect our politicians or Parties to fully expose or explain their long-term 'vision' or objectives to us. This is part of the price we pay for our short-sighted cyclical electoral system, as it has been 'maneuvered' into operating.
It is up to us to nudge them in the right direction from time to time.

At least Barnaby Joyce has been voicing concern over things environmental and sustainable, and will not be easily quieted or diverted. I pray he is heeded; but should Abbott falter, and fail to meet expectations, it is quite on the cards that his reign will be short-lived, and we may even see an ascendancy of the Greens movement and authority (should they amend some of their more uninspiring objectives and get more down to tors with their fundamental, environmental and sustainability charter and agenda).
We, and the environment, can co-exist, in beneficial symbiosis, given opportunity.

In my estimation, fracking is far from open-slather, with opposition on many fronts. (And there seem to be far better options for LNG production than this questionable methodology.)

Mining is a lifeblood for the moment, and no taxation scheme could reasonably counter this, but espoused industrial development must be a major component of future national economic sustainability, as overseas mining prospects cause ours to wane.

Population is a concern, and I am sure will be addressed, however, in my view, the maintenance of agricultural sustainability is of key importance, and must be protected. Our farmers are good environmentalists, for the most part, whereas the sale of productive land to offshore interests presents a host of potential hazards, which I trust our government will recognise, and thus avoid.

Dear Saltpetre,

I have the feeling regarding the environment that things are never so bad that they can’t get worse. We can only nudge our politicians in the right direction in areas where the population is concerned, and the environment has taken a backseat in the Murdoch-controlled media and the general public.

However, I agree with most of the rest of your post. Although I am a Green I am not happy with their lack of concern for population growth and their putting other issues ahead of environmentalism.

The only other sizable party concerned with fracking was Katter’s who I put second on my ballot. I was sad that he did so poorly and Palmer did so well. There was a swing of 16% against Katter. Even though it wasn’t enough to displace him he could go in the new election.

I agree that mining will remain a lifeblood for the immediate future and would like to see us do more in the area of industrial development. In order to do that we must resort to protectionism to foster those new industries, and I don’t see that happening. In fact I expect cutbacks in the CSIRO in R & D.

We have an anti-environmental government in Queensland. Newman wants to increase shipping through the reef even though it is inevitable that there will be damage to the reef if that is done. I agree that exploiting the mineral wealth of Queensland is important, but a railroad could be built to the Gulf of Carpentaria so increased shipping would not affect the reef.

I doubt that Barnaby Joyce will be any more effective in his concern for the environment in his side of politics than Labor MP Kelvin Thomson was in his concern for population policy in his side of politics.

Many of our farmers are good environmentalists. They want the land preserved for the coming generations. Will foreign owners be so concerned? We could set up mechanisms so consumers could buy directly from farmers who practice environmentalism avoiding the supermarket duopoly, but we probably won’t.

I don't share your optimism.

Well, the election must have achieved some good if it ruffled the feathers of a few Greens.

The ignorance of most Greens never ceases to amaze.Take this comment: <<I think there should have been multiculturalism from the beginning>>
Well, if MC means having the option of maintaining ones own cultural values/ways we HAVE had that since the earliest of days. I can point anyone who wants to know --being a descendant of one such community-- to (non-Anglo)immigrant communities that did just that, while communing with all other communities around them.

The main difference is that MC was then not the multi-million dollar funded junket it is today --and, oh yes, we didn't have parties like the Greens who sought to exploit our ethnic divisions.

Tony,
You spruke lefty/green propaganda.

All illegal entrants that arrive by commercial flights are sent back to place of embarkation within 72 hours. They are few in number because the airlines have to bear the cost. Check the DIAC website.

Don't you know there were 50,000 illegals arrive by sea in the last 6 years. Also about 1200-1500 died trying to get here.

What gets me with discussions re economy is, that all the experts can't manage despite their supposedly intimate knowledge of things economic. Not one of them is in a self-revenue raising job, all are in the Government" (our) pocket & chewing up the greater percentage of taxpayer dollars for literally nothing. When will someone with real inside knowledge reveal how much of our tax dollar is actually going to the Peter principal brigade. How many are getting top dollar for absolutely no contribution ? It would be very interesting to get some figures. The mandate handed to the Coalition should be exploited to rid our public service of this funding drain by way of natural attrition. No-one should lose their employment but there certainly are many who should be made to chose between a reduced pay or no pay because we can nor do we want to fund this massive syphoning of tax dollars any longer.
The boat arrivals too need to made to understand that things are coming to a halt. No more putting up in Motels & all expenses paid. Start looking after those who have earned their keep & deserve their slice of the social security cake.
Don't make us responsible for others' conundrums born of primitive superstition far away.

Poirot,
"Don't hold your breath - the present govt borrowed $800 million this week "already". Legacy from Rudd government.

Already, the incoming PM is to have digs with the police cadets while the Lodge is being eradicated from possums. Julie Bishop has instructed Foreign Affairs to reduce the standard of her accommodation when overseas and that she does not require first class when flying. That is a refreshing start.

I expect the good financial management of the past LNP government to continue.

"More pie in the sky....how do you suggest Mr Abbott and Co are going to do that?'

The LNP stopped the illegals before, so they can do it again, just takes some determination. Do not give the illegals what they seek.

Banjo,
You tell whoppers.

>>All illegal entrants that arrive by commercial flights are sent back to place of embarkation within 72 hours.<<

Bullsh!t. The most recent figures I can find show that there are 20,000 illegal immigrants in this country who have been here for more than a decade. A decade equates to some 87,660 hours. 87,660 is greater than 72. In fact the figures I looked didn't include illegal immigrants who overstayed their visa by less than a fortnight (336 hrs.). 336 is also greater than 72. You are full of crap.

>>Don't you know there were 50,000 illegals arrive by sea in the last 6 years.<<

How many are still here? I don't actually have numbers for how many arrived by plane - just the ones that are still here, putting excessive strain on infrastructure, not paying their fair share of taxes, not adopting Australian citizenship and integrating themselves with our culture.

There are about 60,000 of them. About 10,000 more than your 'scary' number of maritime arrivals. And that 60,000 is only the fraction of that hasn't been deported yet, so the raw figures for illegal plane arrivals (the ones who have been deported and the ones who haven't) must dwarf the figures for boat arrivals.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis,
Are these overstayers from the past several years from the Middle East ? Or are they from the USA, Europe or Asia ? I'm asking this because it makes a huge difference if the overstayers are competent people who found meaningful/gainful employment rather than be a burden to us for the next 3 decades with the option of multiplying their numbers.
I would like to have it explained how 60,000 could actually survive here without a job so they must be of use to some employers which of course is beneficial to our economy rather then a drain like those who don't want to integrate.

Tony, the fly ins feed themselves house themselves, do pay tax if they have a proper job, but get no welfare or free medical or hospital care. They cost the taxpayer nothing, & do quite a bit of work that no one else wants to do.

Most boat people are still getting everything as a handout years after they have gate crashed our country. They are nothing but a high cost future problem.

I know which are better value, & they don't have wet feet.

Tony,
Do some homework before shooting your mouth off.

An Illegal entrant is one who arrives without a proper valid visa. There are very few of these because the airlines are responsible for their return. They are detained and put on the first available flight back to where they embarked, within 72 hours according to the DIAC.

There are some people who arrive with valid visas and then apply for asylum while here. Of these only about 30% are successful and are free to go about their business while being assessed. These have arrived legally, please note the difference. The unsuccessful are told they must leave on expiration of their visa.

There is another group of 'overstayers' who are mainly tourists who simply have decided to see/do more whilst here. They have arrived legally, with valid visas. Their overstay is short term, they then leave. This constitutes the bulk of people overstaying their visa and they continue to spend their money and add to the economy while here. DIAC does not consider this group to be a problem.

Then there are other long term overstayers and illegal immigrants. This group also arrived legally but flout our laws by staying and working here. To exist in our society they have to obtain false tax file numbers and medicare cards, etc. From time to time, police and immigration officials catch up with these people and they are usually deported. No doubt even you have read about raids on factories, farms, brothels, building sites and other places. These people are also vulnerable to extortion by unscrupulous employers and landlords.

Maybe more could be done to capture more illegal immigrants.

However there you have it. This info is available on the DIAC website.

You would do well to look it up. But in a nutshell, very few illegal entrants arrive by air. You are not the first to be hoodwinked by the illegals advocates, like the greens.

>>Are these overstayers from the past several years from the Middle East ? Or are they from the USA, Europe or Asia ?<<

I won't be responding to your racist crap other than to say that I've recommended your comment for deletion. What is wrong with you?

>>I would like to have it explained how 60,000 could actually survive here without a job<<

They couldn't, but I didn't say they did

>>they must be of use to some employers which of course is beneficial to our economy<<

Yeah, I guess... if you consider them taking the jobs of willing and able Australian citizens when unemployment hovers around 6%, burdening our infrastructure and dodging their tax responsibilities like the love-child of Kerry Packer and Paul Hogan, then yes, they are beneficial to the economy. But only in the sense of 'beneficial' meaning 'detrimental'.

>>Tony, the fly ins feed themselves house themselves<<

No argument from me there.

>>do pay tax if they have a proper job<<

IF they have a PROPER job.

>>but get no welfare or free medical or hospital care.<<

Can't argue with that either.

>>They cost the taxpayer nothing<<

Not so sure about that.

>>do quite a bit of work that no one else wants to do<<

Really? That NO one else wants to do? Have you asked everyone? I bet there's some poor bugger out there who's just lost his job and hasn't any prospects who'd love to do that job... some poor bugger that grew here not flew here.

>>Most boat people are still getting everything as a handout years after they have gate crashed our country.<<

If they're taken in as refugees they become full Australian citizens... no more right to handouts than Jim from down the road. If they are living off the taxpayers largesse as some Aboriginal communities and most bogan communities do then they need a good kick up the arse. But I haven't seen anything to suggest this is the case beyond your proclamations and you're not exactly a credible source.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony says: <<I won't be responding to your racist crap...>>

Then later (in the same post) he adds:

<<If they're taken in as refugees they become full Australian citizens... no more right to handouts than ...BOGAN COMMUNITIES do...>>

Typical!

And Tony, I think you'll find --if you care to look-- they get a few extracts on account of being "refugees" --like specially reserved university places.

Tony lavis,
you're either high at the moment, or you're a moron at the best of times. what on earth havs my statement got to do with racism. Actually quite an odd accusation to someone as opposed to racism as myself. On the other hand it's been quite a while since some idiot has brought up that stupid term on OLO.

>><<I won't be responding to your racist crap...>>

Then later (in the same post) he adds:

<<If they're taken in as refugees they become full Australian citizens... no more right to handouts than ...BOGAN COMMUNITIES do...>>

Typical!<<

Sorry for offending you, SPQR. I wasn't aware that bogans were considered a distinct race these days. Let's see.. bo-gan. Sounds sort of celtic to me. Are bogans regarded as being some distinct offshoot of Irish or Scottish settlers where you're from? That would be my best guess but I could be miles off.. educate me.

Where I'm from they're just d!ckheads who drink too much, smoke too much, think too little, sponge off the taxpayer and hoon around in unroadworthy sh!tboxes.

I didn't know there were any racial overtones to the word bogan. Once again, I apologise to you and any ethnic bogans who may have been offended by my insensitivity.

>>And Tony, I think you'll find --if you care to look-- they get a few extracts on account of being "refugees" --like specially reserved university places.<<

I sincerely doubt they get any uni places 'specially reserved'. Quite possibly there are scholarships specifically directed at refugees but that is not the same as a 'reserved' place at uni. There are lot of uni's in this country and a lot of scholarships. I don't think any Australian govt. scholarships should preference refugees but private scholarships are a different matter. One of my friends at uni attended on a Masonic scholarship - only available to Masons or their blood relatives. Unfair and discriminatory? Yes. But the Masons are a private organisation and it's up to them to decide who they give they scholarships to. Same applies to refugee advocacy groups that hand out scholarships to refugees.

Cheers,

Tony

>>what on earth havs my statement got to do with racism. Actually quite an odd accusation to someone as opposed to racism as myself<<

According to your posts you think that a persons race is a crucial determining factor in how well they will resettle in this country. How is that not racist? Are you simple?

>>An Illegal entrant is one who arrives without a proper valid visa.<<

Oh I get it... we're splitting hairs. Well, if that's what amuses you.

An illegal immigrant is somebody who is in the country without a valid visa (what is a proper valid visa?). You can enter legally with a valid visa but if you stay longer than your visa allows... Hey Presto! You're an illegal immigrant.

So one comes in with a valid visa and the other doesn't. They're still both on our soil illegally. Without our welcome. They flout our laws and make a mockery of border protection. But the ones who come in boats get caught and shipped off to PNG, while the ones who come in planes waltz through customs and disappear a few weeks later. So they make a REAL mockery of our border protection. These are the real 'economic refugees': no other thought than lining their own back pockets. When do you think one these crooks last filed a tax return? How many of these crooks do you think are in legitimate business in the first place?

>>Maybe more could be done to capture more illegal immigrants.<<

I daresay it could. Maybe if we stopped wasting so much attention and money on so inconsequential a problem as illegal boat arrivals and regained a sense of perspective that would be a start.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony,

<< Sorry for offending you...>>
The emotion was more one of amusement. Illegal immigration advocates usually shoot themselves in the foot, and you were true to type.

<< Where I am re just d!ckheads who drink too much...>>
I think we both know it is a term of abuse commonly applied by those on your side to practically anyone who challenges their support for illegal immigration.

<<I sincerely doubt they get any uni places 'specially reserved'>>
I don't if you have given it enough consideration to have a genuine doubt. It wasn't on your cue cards so you so you didn't know about it. There are universities --and major ones at that -- that see being a "refugee" as special grounds for admission.

Tony,
I have responded to you as I considered you to be misinformed. Now you are arguing like a fool.

I have never mentioned a race or where a person comes from.

You said. "Oh I get it... we're splitting hairs. Well, if that's what amuses you". You should Know that all non-citizens require a valid visa to enter Australia, that is our law. That is why, and the only reason, we can detain illegal entrants, no matter how they arrive.

You also said, "An illegal immigrant is somebody who is in the country without a valid visa (what is a proper valid visa?). You can enter legally with a valid visa but if you stay longer than your visa allows... Hey Presto! You're an illegal immigrant". Now you are starting to get the picture and you will find that applies in most countries. If one stays longer than his visa allows he is breaking the law.

You said also. "I daresay it could. Maybe if we stopped wasting so much attention and money on so inconsequential a problem as illegal boat arrivals and regained a sense of perspective that would be a start".

So you consider 50,000 illegals and the billions of dollars spent as inconsequential? Looks like you are not just misinformed but a genuine fool as well. There are thousands of genuine refugees far more deserving than the shonks that turn up here without valid visas.

I love a sunburnt country, A land of ?

Life, used to be so simple then, when ?

I would love to see a political and popular movement of 'Australia for Australians'. Closest try, One Nation? But too narrow, and too xenophobic, perhaps. In the right direction? Maybe.

I hate to think of Oz going the way of Hong Kong, Tokyo or Shanghai, etc. Is that what we want; can that be a popular 'dream'?
Big, bigger, biggest? Is that the only future? Or, can we Choose, can we Dare, to be Different?
No stopping the clock; no turning back; caught in the whirlwind, and only one way to go? With the inevitable, the inexorable, flow?

If I had a choice I would lock the door and throw away the key; take some breathing space; say to myself, 'what the heck, do we really Have to do what everyone else is doing, just Because They're doing it?' Why can't we choose a different model; do our own thing, our own way? (Instead of just accepting that we will get run over by the 'steamroller' if we even 'think' about looking for a different 'tack'? Fear, trepidation, oh, shock, horror?)

We've (Oz) got a lot going for us, but we could lose all that's really important to us, as a nation, as a people, if we just 'go along' with the 'bigger is better' model.
I say 'fie' on that model; 'we' can do better, and without the boulder around our neck, of the 'bigger' - if we can do as others have done before us, and ask ourselves 'what can we do best?' - and then, do it.

What say you?

Tony Lavis,
It's dimwits like you who are the cause of much racism & other idiotic problems. Imagine a world without the likes of you. One can only dream.

Despite all the huffing and puffing on the illegal immigrants problem
there is no doubt that an invasion has occurred.

Where I live in probably over less than three years I am about to
become a minority.
This is a large Sydney local government area with a fast growing Chinese population.
I don't have access to the number of electors or ratepayers in the
area but it seems likely that it has increased by about 33% in a very
short time. The schools and the trains are about 60% Chinese.

Housing auctions are dominated by Chinese buyers paying prices about
$150000 above the previous level of just a year ago.
These are not poor migrants, and they have very little English.
Two recent auctions in my street were dominated by Chinese buyers.
In one case they paid $750000 for a knock down fibro house and in the
other case they paid $850000 for a 1940s two bedroom fibro house on
a less than good block.

I am beginning to suspect that the Chinese have some sort of scheme
going to get past normal immigration requirements or the government
is sponsoring them.

I don't want to live in a Chinese country.
I want my country back !

Where have you been Bazz, this is nothing new.

In the mid 60s a bloke I knew had a retail business in Petersham Sydney. Over a few years he was squeezed out of his business by his staff. When he could no longer talk to any customers, as none of them spoke English, he had to walk away.

In the late 90s I was using an Endeavor Foundation workshop in Brisbane to do some light assembly work, & to put products with instructions into boxes. For some reason they moved that type of work to their workshop in Parramatta Sydney.

My supply manager went down to sort out a few things. When he got to Parramatta & asked for directions he could not find anyone in the main street who spoke English. None of the 3 taxi drivers at the stand could understand where he wanted to go, & no one in a large furniture store spoke English. He called me to advise he may require another day to get the work done. The new game he was playing called "Spot the Ozzie" to try to get directions, was using up so much time.

I don't think they were Chinese, but they sure were not "Australians". Of course it is worse now, with many parts of our country no go areas for Anglo Ozzies.

Dear Hasbeen,

Gee whiz - poor old Parramatta.
Poor "Anglo ozzies."

When my parents settled in Parramatta around the 1950s -
they didn't have any serious trouble communicating
with anyone in the area - and they learned English very
quickly as well. It may be a question of attitude.
If "Anglo ozzies" are having problems
perhaps the problem lies with the "Anglo Ozzies?"
Just a thought. Of course I should add that my parents
did speak eight languages and not just one. Plus they didn't
expect any one to make any concessions for them - and they
were willing to meet people half-way in their communication
efforts.

cont'd ...

I forgot to mention that when we travelled for two weeks
through Mexico we didn't have a problem communicating
despite the fact that neither of us spoke Spanish and the
locals did not speak English.

Tourists travel through Europe and Asia all the time and they
don't seem to have much of a problem communicating with the
locals - if they're willing to make the effort.

We regularly go to Chinese shops and don't have a problem
to be served to our satisfaction despite the fact that many
of the staff don't speak English. So, it seems to be up to
the individual - as to whether there are problems or not.

The first generation of migrants may have difficulty with
the language, but as history has shown, the next generation
will be better educated and speak more fluently than we do.

I was in a Chinese restaurant in Singapore. There was not a word of English displayed anyplace. However, there were pictures on the wall of the items with the prices in Arabic numerals. We pointed to what we wanted and were served with a smile. It was a pleasant experience and the best meal I had in Singapore. They took my money and didn't seem to mind my ignorance of Chinese.

It was a pleasant experience and the best meal I had in Singapore
david f,
many of us had pleasant experiences in Singapore. how many pleasant experiences have you had in Cabramatta lately ? Why not take some leftie OLOers for dinner in Lidcombe ? Let us know how you went walking home afterwards.

When my parents settled in Parramatta around the 1950s -
Foxy,
I don't think you're grasping the situation at hand. When your parents arrived in Australia they had to learn to converse with Australians just as I did in '70. But, we're not talking about that. We're talking about Australians being expected to converse with immigrants in the immigrants' language, not in Australian/English. Didn't you parents tell you that when you migrate to another country is is a pretty good idea to learn that country's language instead of expecting the country to learn your language ?

Dear Individual,

My parents did not have a language problem in their
ability to communicate with others no matter where they
lived and worked, and they did so all over the globe.
The problem arose only in this country in the 1950s - where they
were consistently reminded to "Speak English," by some.
Those were the days then - when the heritage of every
Australian was the right to be exactly the same as everybody
else. Most of us have evolved since those days.

It was not a language problem as such for my parents, it was a question
of "attitude" and it wasn't theirs but that of the locals.
Therein lay the problem.

Perhaps this following extract may help clarify things
for you and you will be reminded of those days.

"He said, "Fellow Australians, both old and new.
I'm glad to see yus all here for this important ceremony.
In welcomin' yus on behalf of Council though, I would
stress one point, important to all of yus who are wanting
to be nationalised. I would urge yus all to learn to speak
English properly. I know that, in my own particular line,
which is plumbin', I often have the greatest difficulty
in understandin' what some of yus are talking about when
you endeavour to describe what is wrong with your sinks,
baths or cisterns - as the case may be. Now, this is only
one instance of how important it is for reffos - er -
new citizens - to learn to speak English properly; I mean
ter say, if you can say "comment tallez vous" in your own
tongue, isn't it just as easy to say, "How are yus goin,"
in English? So listen to the old Aussies around yer, and in
next to no time, yus'll be spoutin' English left, right
and centre just like the best of us."

I trust that you see the humour and the irony in all of this.
And hopefully things have changed since way back then.

Cheers.

Dear Foxy,

Your post was amusing in pointing out the semi-literate patois that many Australians call English. eg 'Me and me brudder'. Gradations of approval disappear and get replaced by the all-purpose word, fantastic. Unique which meant one of a kind is used in the locutions, very unique and quite unique. If unique has gradations one needs another word to mean the absolute one-of-a-kind.

However, another reason this is is a meaningless election to me is the record of Kevin Rudd. We should be able to accept people from different linguistic backgrounds. We also should be able to accept people from any and no religious background. Kevin Rudd put chaplains in the public schools when he was in the Queensland government. Howard extended this to the nation and created the National School Chaplaincy Program. The NSCP is dominated by the primitive fundies of Scripture Union in Queensland and Access Ministries in Victoria. IMHO they have no business in the public schools. Yet Rudd is responsible for this.

I am happy that Rudd lost. I would have been happy if Abbott lost. Abbott is a buddy of the reactionary Cardinal Pell. To be a democracy in today's world I think it is necessary to have separation of religion and state. Neither party leader qualified in that area.

Dear David F.,

Australia has secular government and no official or
state religions. Religious laws have no legal status
in Australia. And yet, the li9ne between government
and religion is not always clearly drawn. The "wall
of separation" between church and state is largely a
myth. In practice, civic affairs and religion have
long been closely intertwined. Religion is an element
in oaths of office, party conventions, court-room
procedures and indeed nearly all formal public occasions.

Even the Boy Scouts give a "God and Country" award, a
phrase that implies, to say the least, a compatibility of
interest betwen the two. Political leaders always pay
at least lip service to religious beliefs. The opening of
Parliament takes place with a religious service.
Therefore the controversial issues involving the
relationship between church and state do seem likely to endure.
It will be interesting to see what Mr Abbott with his Jesuit
upbringing and his close relationship with Cardinal Pell
will bring to his role as PM. Will his disband the Royal
Commission that's looking into institutionalised child
sexual abuse? What legislation (if any) will be considered
regarding same-sex marriage, and what about issues such as -
abortion and euthanasia - to name just a few.

Friends all,
I think the election was full of meaning. It brought the humor of our mining giant, the actual depth of the big white hat, the caliber of some nitwits gun barrel and a whole host of underachieving minor runners all lined up on the fence to watch us squirm for the next three years.
Thank you Australia

If anything this election has put some meaning back into australian politics.
David F,
As for accept people from any and no religious background. No-one will give you an argument on that one except those from such background. Tell me one person that has been turned back on religious ground ? People are being turned back on grounds of behaviour & lack of I.d. & lack of proof that they are genuine. I couldn't give a hoot if I every religion in the world represented in my neighbourhood. Where I would object is if churches & mosques were build all over the place & if my mornings were disrupted by religious noise & religious followers traffic & parking all over my suburb.
Religion as stupid a by-product of superstition it is, it is not consequential in any way to daily life. Where it is full of problems when it interferes in others' lives' & this is what religion does. It is a troublesome interference & socially divisive superstition. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what it preaches. How much mor evidence do you need ?

individual wrote: "Religion as stupid a by-product of superstition it is, it is not consequential in any way to daily life. Where it is full of problems when it interferes in others' lives' & this is what religion does. It is a troublesome interference & socially divisive superstition. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what it preaches. How much mor evidence do you need ?"

Dear individual,

In light of what you wrote do you favour getting rid of chaplains in the public schools and government subsidies to non-public schools? I think it would be a good thing.

However, I can't see either Labor or the Libs doing it. Kevin Rudd was responsible for getting chaplains into the public schools. He started the program in Queensland, and Howard made it national. Cutting back subsidies to Catholic schools would disturb Abbott's buddy, Pell.

I do not think it should be the business of government to tell people they cannot have their superstitions. It should not be the business of government to finance them either.

Financing religion seems to me violating Section 116 of the Australian Constitution which says:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

It is imposing a religious observance to use our taxes to promote any religion.

david f,
Yep !