In what can best be described as an out of character move, the Federal Coalition Government has blocked the NSW Coalition Government’s sale (99 year lease) of 50.4% of ‘Ausgrid’ to Hong Kong Chinese interests, sighting “national security” concerns. Treasure Morrison could not exactly detail what those concerns were.
Bob Carr said the Federal Government's decision may have been driven by xenophobia in the new political climate, Hanson and co in the Senate. The decision could cost NSW $1 billion, not to be sneezed at! Mike Baird is not a happy camper this morning over the whole affair. The broader question is, how do you feel about governments selling public assets in the first place.

I'm completely opposed to the privatisation and sale of many of our assets.
I think that a government needs to prove it can run a business properly in order to demonstrate it has the ability to run a country.
Politicians don't deserve to be paid for the time they spend selling off that which Australians worked so hard for in the first place.
They never did any of the hard yards themselves building it.

Also, I believe capitalism in some areas hurts the economy overall.
For example its not good to have skills, training, transportation and energy creation as capitalist business if this increases costs overall because it just provides a bottleneck to overall productivity by increasing costs to businesses.

"The decision could cost NSW $1 billion"...
Yeah... and not selling my spare kidney and other organs is costing me a fortune too.

Nothing should be sold to China. Nothing should ever have been sold to China. Utilities should always remain government-owned. Where they have been sold off, consumer prices have sky-rocketed. Electricity was sold off in SA (China is involved) and we now have the highest power prices in the world; the forests of inefficient wind mills have something to do with that as well. Whether or not the Chinese attempt and Baird stupidity in NSW has really been blocked because of security or not, who knows; but China is a natural enemy of Australia. Pauline Hanson? Well, we shall have to wait to see if she gets something she wanted before we can involve her. The point is, it is foolish to sell off essential services to anyone, including China and any other foreigners. Australian politicians, idiots that they are, have to stop spending to claw back what they have fritted away, not sell off Australia bit by bit to keep themselves in power and a job for life.

There is virtually no justification for governments to be running businesses unless they are natural monopolies. However, given that Ausgrid is critical infrastructure, there is good reason to exclude state owned "businesses" from less than ideal governments.

Anyone owning Ausgrid could shut down NSW in a day.

@Paul1405, Saturday, 13 August 2016 7:18:28 AM

Typical Greens 'Protest' Party, the federal government is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. You are only in it to stir.

However for the benefit of other posters who would like to discuss the pros and cons, this being a discussion site and not a wall for Greens political graffitti, I would say that Baird was misdirected on this one.

The feds have cited security concerns and that is enough to advise against the sale. Others might also ask why Government would sell a money-making concern into foreign ownership.

There is a higher plane for this discussion, which is the failure of both sides of governments to plan for the future that is resulting in the need for State and federal governments to sell assets to plug holes in the Budget.

However, States and Territories do have a defence and Bob Carr should remember it since when he was Premier of NSW and later as a federal government minister he cited it.

It is quite simply that for decades the feds have been running over-ambitious immigration with often new records being set every year and that has continually overstretched the available infrastructure AND the pockets of the over-taxed public. It is also why there is so much restriction of government services and 'user pays' - 'that was previously paid out of available tax revenues.>

to be continued..

continued..

<<Bob Carr urges 50% cut in immigration
FEBRUARY 16, 2016

Australia's population ticked over to 24 million on Tuesday, on the back of record net overseas migration in the year to July 2015.
Mr Carr said the country's rapid population growth was flooding major cities and putting huge pressure on house prices.

"People wonder why their youngsters can't get housing in the big cities," he told reporters in Sydney.
"And the answer is we are going for breakneck population growth, and it's all about supply and demand."

The former NSW Labor premier and federal foreign minister said Australia's growth rate outstripped Indonesia's and was the highest of any developed country.

"We've got a third-world style population growth rate and I think the Australian people need to be alerted to this," he said.
"There's a case for pegging immigration back by easily a third, perhaps 50 per cent."..

Mr Carr said the "hugely over-ambitious" approach to migration was devised by Canberra bureaucrats without sufficient thought to the pressure it was putting on property markets and congestion in cities like Sydney and Melbourne.

"No matter how much governments spend on infrastructure, at this level of population, it's always never enough," he said.>
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/population-growth-fuels-house-prices-carr/news-story/48d783c75758347b0d83469537fbe5f8

Beach, typical of your anti free speech mantra, wishing to deny me the right to comment on issues, claiming I am doing some Green "stirring" whenever it takes your fantasy. Naturally you feel free to deliver one of your Nationalists Hansonite diatribes, see you own comment on this thread, whenever you feel like doing so on the forum. Unlike you I support free speech and the rights of others to hold an opinion, that is not mine or yours for that matter, opinions of people you would like to shut up. What a poor miserable society it would be if a jackboot like you, or your lovely Pauline were ever to be in command.

Shadow, a bit of standard orthodox conservative thinking on your part.

I agree with AC on this. There are certain core assets that are of national importance which should remain in public ownership. Power generation and distribution, are that kind of strategic asset that we can ill afford to come under private control. Certainly these core assets should never fall into foreign, private or government hands. Would the populace be happy with foreign control of say water supply, or total food production. Should we fully 'privatize' health and education, for some short term financial gain.

The notion of government allowing a 99 year lease of the Port of Darwin to the People's Republic of China, to me is tantamount to lunacy ! To sell our top, primary agricultural land, to them is bad enough, but our most northerly Port, is a monumental strategic error of epic proportions. I suppose one thing is now abundantly clear, Australia and China will never go to war against each other - why should they, they already own us, 'lock, stock 'n barrel' ! What a bloody embarrassment !

Paul1405,

Your imagination and 'creative'(sic) writing are way out of control. The quote was from Bob Carr, Labor. Other Labor State Premiers, for instance, Anna Bligh criticised the feds for using high immigration to boost 'growth' and at the expense of the State and Territory governments who were obliged to shoulder the negative consequences.

To repeat, there has been a failure of both sides of governments to plan for the future that is resulting in the need for State and federal governments to sell assets to plug holes in the Budget.

However, States and Territories do have a defence and Bob Carr should remember it since when he was Premier of NSW and later as a federal government minister he cited it.

It is quite simply that for decades the feds have been running over-ambitious immigration with often new records being set every year and that has continually overstretched the available infrastructure AND the pockets of the over-taxed public. It is also why there is so much restriction of government services and 'user pays' - 'that was previously paid out of available tax revenues.

Both sides of government defend the asset sales they have to have to pay for overspending and lack of planning, saying that Australia cannot afford to properly exploit resources and foreign investment and know-how is necessary. But how does that explain sales of rich farming land and water rights? Particularly where China says outright it will be importing its own workers and providing exclusively for its own market?

While on the subject, it is simply amazing how many ex-politicians, all of whom are supported by the taxpayer, are 'consultants' representing Chinese interests and doing very well indeed out of it.

o sung wu, "..Australia and China will never go to war against each other - why should they, they already own us, 'lock, stock 'n barrel'"

Sadly, countries that have been jealous of the natural assets of another country have commonly used defence and protection of their investments and people in that country as the rationalisation for attack.

With Greens and other looney leftists forever playing the race card and embarrassing Australia internationally, China might like to acquire an even larger base in the Pacific.

Beach, the biggest embarrassment to Australia are the racists comments of One Nation, Pauline Hanson and her supporters, Are you not a Hansonite yourself. from the Deep North.

o sung wu, your comments on the sale of the Port of Darwin are spot on. Although I agree major asset sales/leases are bad, I can only see this particular move by the Turnbull Government as no more than a cynically bad attempt by the little male spider himself to woo the "black widow" in the Senate. She might eat him alive!

I don't like any government, but if the choice is between having our electricity controlled by the Australian government or (directly or indirectly) by the Chinese government, then I don't need to hesitate or even blink - it's certainly the former.

Now to the broader question: "how do you feel about governments selling public assets in the first place?"

I am not comfortable with the fact that an illegitimate and oppressive body such as a government holds the keys to our basic utilities. However:

1. The illegitimacy of governments and the fact that they control the infrastructure for our basic utilities are two different and hardly related matters.

2. For completely different reasons, I am also not comfortable with the fact the our basic utilities are held by commercial companies (even if they are Australian companies).

Under these circumstances, with two major reasons against one, reluctantly I rather have the infrastructure and our basic utilities be in the hands of government. not sold.

Ideally however, either:

1. The state reforms itself, so that participation is voluntary. Once this happens, I will be much more than happy for all major infrastructure and utilities to be in the hands of government.

OR

2. Infrastructure and basic utilities would be in the hands of public, non-profit bodies other than the government. In other words, they belong to all those who want them, but not to the state or its government.

This is clearly a great move since, as we all know, Chinese electricity is of a vastly lesser quality that good old Aussie made electricity. China's domestic electricity is only 220v whereas our's is 240v.

QED.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH & PAUL10405...

This current LNP government have completely lost their way, as far as China is concerned ? There's no doubt we should encourage foreign investment into our country, but never ever sell off anything of strategic value, including prime agriculture land, or our best Dairy, cattle or sheep properties. In fact everything we export, whether it's iron ore or something else, we should endeavour to 'value add' to it in some measure, in order to get a greater slice of the cake the other end.

I dislike our untrustworthy Prime Minister immensely, enough said about him ! But I'm equally disappointed with Mr Scott MORRISON as our Treasurer, notwithstanding he performed well as our Immigration Minister. Clearly, he seems well out of his depth in his current Portfolio ?

I really don't know gentlemen, everywhere I look I see ineptitude by our stupid government. Running up more and more debt. Weakening our modest Defence capability, by purchasing a dozen conventionally powered Subs, scheduled to be delivered goodness knows when ? Of course they're already obsolete, because we needed Nuclear Submarines, capable of patrolling submerged with great stealth for weeks if necessary ! Stupidity abounds everywhere you look ! Everywhere ! Why is it so - ONTHEBEACH and PAUL1405, we're such a stupid stupid nation ?

"Beach, the biggest embarrassment to Australia are the racists comments of One Nation, Pauline Hanson and her supporters, Are you not a Hansonite yourself. from the Deep North." Paul.

What a pile of twaddle Paul. Japan, China, India, Russia, Turkey & every middle eastern country is saying regarding their countries exactly what Hansen, & any patriotic Ozzie is saying. Our country for us, not some blow ins.

Sure bureaucrats & academics are more interested in what others from other countries are saying, but that just shows they do not have the interests of average Ozzies at heart.

Any Ozzy bread, anti Ozzy twit, voicing attitudes like yours just proves that we can breed our own, & definitely don't need to import anti Ozzy sentiment, as we currently do.

The real embarrassment is that we allow the rubbish from noisy minorities like you to colour our policies. The Asians in particular must be laughing their heads off at our weakness in listening to people like you.

The Barrier Reef coal industry made China the electrical power it is today and has earned the right to Newcastle's warming grid. Chinese menus contain a bit of Oz Coal from Melbourne to Beijing.

o sung wu. we are in agreement on this, although you know my stance on war so I'm no a big fan of submarines, but you do make a point on that. Didn't we once buy some 'Mirage' fighters off the French, were they not lemons?

Back on the subject, I don't know how other similar countries Canada, New Zealand etc treat foreign investment. I can't see the US allowing China or Russia to take over their electricity industry in the way we are. Until this decision foreign investment has been nothing more than a rubber stamp job. Some government decisions have shocked me, and I'm not easily shocked! I'm sure many government decisions have shocked you and others as well.

Paul,

"Shadow, a bit of standard orthodox conservative thinking on your part."

That is basic public economics. Clearly the greens have no clue or memory of the economic disasters of nationalised industries in the 60s and 70s.

China's recent bellicose actions and threats against Aus have made it a concern w.r.t. holding strategic assets. This would not be a problem for France, Germany or Japan.

The Roman senator Anthony Abbott Augustus has wisely warned of corruption among NSW Liberal power-brokers. These will control 50% of the leased power grid which is very insecure .

Hi there PAUL1405...

I do understand and appreciate your stance on War. If I say, if, we need to purchase Subs, they MUST be Nuclear, otherwise they're already outdated. Hopefully Paul, at least with half a dozen Nuclear Subs we do possess a real deterrent to other countries who may have a mind to attack us. Whether it be Indonesians, China or whoever - there's very few Nations who'd not think twice if confronted with the spectre of an appropriately armed, heavy hitting Nuclear Submarine. The name of the game is NOT to 'threaten', but 'deter'. Thanks Paul.

The great fuss over Pauline Hanson is understandable.
The simple fact of the matter is she was right !

If she had been wrong nothing would have been heard about her.

China it seems to me is laying up the foundations of a long term claim
to all or part of the country. There have been comments about the
Chinese navigator that explored a large part of the Indian Ocean.
That voyage it is claimed touched on Australia and lays a foundation
for a prior Chinese sovereignty claim.
Now that sounds over the top.
Is it not in the same as claiming the open sea ?
Their claim could be backed up with a list of properties owned by China.

When that Chinese voyager returned to China the Emperor decided not
to further undertake trade or exploration and burnt all records of the voyage.

The Chinese burger buggers are resisting the take-away:
Private equity and strategic suitors are circling McDonald's (NYSE:MCD) Chinese business. This is part of a larger McDonald's pullback from Asia including South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Japan.
Thankfully the Mack attack has installed chopper pads on the roof of each Fort McDonald for airborne fast service.

Shadow, what you may not be aware of is government, once relied on these state owned enterprises as a useful tool to reduce unemployment. 50 plus years back, governments purposely over employed to reduce dole queues and voter discontent. Inefficient, but effective, was 40,000 employed by the NSW Government railways at one time. That is not to say government enterprise if run properly today cannot be both efficient and profitable. The Commonwealth Bank, as a government enterprise at one time, was able to compete equally with private banks.

Paul,

50 yrs ago when the economy had ruined by rabid socialism, then wasteful employment schemes were necessary to mop up the vast numbers of unemployed. However, with unemployment close to 5% there is no justification for inefficient state owned monopolies.

P.S. finding a state owned enterprise running as efficiently as a privately owned one is like finding a needle in a haystack.

Shadow,

There is no evidence that Australia was ever subjected to "rabid socialism", just the opposite, with mostly conservative, or moderately socialistic governments in control during what could be termed the period of "nation building" 1901-1960. During this time the emphasis of government was directed towards the construction of infrastructure, roads, rail, ports, bridges, power stations etc. Without government intervention many, if not all, of these great undertakings would have never got off the ground.
Prewar, private foreign investment (British) in Australia was restricted to agriculture, with no interest in secondary industry investment. Post war, government encouraged foreign investment in new sunrise industries, steel production, automobiles, white goods etc, but most have failed, and that is not the fault of government. In fact government gave generous incentives to private investors to set up and operate in Australia.
Can you show how Australia was ever subjected to "rabid socialism".

Paul,

Clearly your concept of moderate and mine are far different.

The early seventies (and late 40s to some extent) are prime examples of rabid socialism where trade unionism was enforced (most union members were forced to be as a condition of employment), and social engineering was rampant with no regard to any fiscal discipline, and personal tax rates peaked at a marginal rate of 70% and company taxes at 48%.

China's rather obvious expansionist goal is to conduct an economic invasion of Australia.

China's own country is becoming an industrial wasteland fouled by pollution and they want clean food from Australia but they want to also OWN the food production here in Australia.

The govt has recognized China's expansionist ambitions and has sensibly stopped China getting control of such vital infrastructure as the power grid.

Prince Charles will own your house because Cook gave it to George III. America owns your Holden. Kiwis own the fruit.

From China's point of view to own the farms as well as the processing
and the ships that take the food/milk etc to China is the best arrangement
as the profit from the whole chain can by arranging prices leave
most if not all profit to be made in China.
This is known as tranfer pricing.

If you saw 4 corners last night what is the bet that most of the
shareholders in Murray Goulburn Devondale are Chinese.
Murray Goulburn is a co-op that has by some arrangement floated partly
on the stock market. A strange arrangement.

Ever get the feeling we are being taken for mugs ?

Obviously Shadow,

My concept of rabid socialism would include nationalisation of industry, strict economic controls with capitalism very much of a minor influence, government intervention into society in general, through social engineering would be the norm. I do not think Australian governments have been guilty to any great degree of rabid socialism. The time when Australia came closest to those conditions was 1939-45. As war measures required far more intrusion than normal by government, but capitalism was still allowed to flourish and profit substantially under the governments war measures.
I think you base your belief that Australia suffered from rabid socialism during the two periods of Labor Governments post war is based more on your philosophical views than any thing else. Tax rates are not a indicator of rabid socialism, in that case you could argue that the Menzies government was rabid socialist compared to the Keating government.

Hi Paul,

Fascinating. In your exchange with OTB above, am I right in concluding that, if he or anyone disagrees with you, they are somehow denying your right to an opinion ? And as well, if someone disagrees with you, they are Hansonites ?

Is that your best ?

And by the way, your latest post about introducing rabid socialism has been tried many times, and failed every time. Every time, and I'm writing that as a very long-term 'socialist'. It has failed every time. Not only that but every time, it has degenerated into fascism. Can you name any exceptions ?

Look for a better model, my friend, before you waste any more of your precious years.

Joe

Joe, you are rather slow on the uptake, and a bit late, the reference to "rabid socialism" was first raised by Shadow Minister and we were simply having a discussion about it, not involving you at all. Nothing for you to concern yourself with.
As for OTB being a Hansonite, he very much has demonstrated his fervor for the woman's views. You seem to have no objection to Beach referring to me as a Trotskyists, are all Greens Trotskyists?
You seem cruise in from time to time and direct these little barbs of yours at me, feel free to do so.

Hi Paul,

Second time lucky. Bastard computer.

OLO is a sort of market-place for ideas and free expression, long may it prosper. So anybody can comment on anybody else's posts.

No, not all Greens are Trotskyites, and vice versa. Some are genuine conservationists and environmentalists. And of course, some are ratbags.

As with Trotskyites: As happens with purists who are in tiny numbers, they have to be opportunists, sucking up to all manner of other pissed-off minorities on the opportunist Left, as well as the extreme-Right such as ISIS.

A common feature of both Greens and Trotskyites is that they tend to think they are intelligent. So they tend not to learn much from life experience, simply becoming more paranoid with time, as their fantasies are dashed one after the other.

Cheers,

Joe

I think we need to think a little more about the supposed benefits of foreign 'investment', and even the need for it in the first place.

The NSW electicity debacle is a prime example to start with. As it is, it supplies power at a reasonable price, jobs for Australians, and revenue to the Government. Sell it to foreigners, and if supplies power at ever increasing prices (viz: SA even before the renewable energy con), jobs, which could go to Chinese workers (thanks to 'free' trade agreements there is nothing to stop China bringing in its own workers) and NO revenue to the Australian government, apart from a one off payment that will be wasted anyway. Add to that the fact that the Australian government hasn't got the guts to see that China and and other foreigners pay a proper amount of tax.

The same applies to the selling off land, housing and any establised industry. The only instance where foreign investment serves Ausralia is when foreigners set up a NEW business that provides NEW jobs for unemployed Australians, or NEW housing which provides housing for Australians, or NEW infrastructure that the incompetent Australian government cannot provide because of its wasteful spending on rubbish nobody has asked for because it is not needed or wanted.

As it is, so-called foreign investment only benefits the foreigners. We are run by a bunch of idiots.

Are we all so dense, that no one realises by 'selling' off all of our most precious and successful agricultural facilities; AND 'selling' off much of our more important infrastructure; AND permitting a 99 year lease to the Chinese Communist Government of the Port of Darwin, a vitally important strategic decision! Can't any or our politicians see the Chinese will ultimately OWN us, lock, stock & barrel !

We'd have to be the silliest, dumbest and most stupid country in the entire developed world ! No need for China to flex it's 'many' muscles, by holding 'exercises' in the South China Sea, when they probably already hold the front door keys to Canberra's Parliament House now, and don't forget the 'PM's Lodge' just up the road. I hear there are a number of eminent Chinese architects, who are already on site, looking at changing it's design, more in keeping with Classical Chinese underscore and composition, from what I've heard ? And what's next ?

I've heard whispers, the Sydney Opera House will have a new owner, sooner rather than later - Nevertheless, I don't believe for a moment the Chinese Premier, after extensive renovations, intends using this iconic structure as a summer residence for him, and select members of the Chinese Communist Party ?

Though, you never know ?

@Paul1405, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 12:25:03 PM

There is always a disconnect, a gulf, between what you believe other posters have written and reality.

However, you do often refer to your close relations and simpatico between yourself and your 'Aunty Lee Rhiannon'(Brown) and other Eastern Bloc Greens.

The internal Greens politics must be very much like the Spy versus Spy of Mad Magazine.

Paul,

Essentially your version of Rabid socialism is pretty much out and out communism Lee Rhiannon style, which has without exception produced extreme misery for its citizens.

Gough Whitless was a prime example of a rabid socialist who wanted to give everything to everyone for free, and in spite of ramping up taxes to the highest level in history, blew the budget in a big way.

Menzies tried to reduce the damage, but could only reduce taxes so far.

Hi Joe,

I can't really comment on this Greens/Trot axis you are so familiar with, Unlike you I have not met many people, if any, who admit to being Green Trotskyists, a couple of red trots yes, but never green.
How do you introduce yourself; "Hallo there, my name is Joe." Do they reply with; "Hallo, my name is Leon, I am a Green Trotskyists!" should I try that approach?

Beach, as a Greens insider you seem to know far more than I! So I'll simply acknowledge that all your first hand clap trap you glean from the pages of the Murdoch gutter press is true and correct.
Don't be ashamed of being a "Hansonite", most of the opinions expressed on this thread about Chinese buying into Australia would go down well at any self respecting One Nation Meeting, including my opinions.

Come on, Paul, you and I have probably been in the business long enough to know better: of course, nobody says what they are. I learnt that at about the time of the Rosenberg murders in 1953: they were my parents' age, and we were their kid's age. So of course you keep your lips zipped. Years later, when I was a Ted Hill supporter for a short time, that was still the rule.

However, not too many SPA or CPA or Socialist Apologists for Islamism supporters would admit to sucking up to any Trots, and vice versa. But birds of a feather .... After all, anything which might bring the system down in their common march through the institutions of the West.

In relation to the topic, I would hazard a guess and suggest that there are not too many on the pseudo-Left who still support the Chinese (although you never can tell with opportunists), although I do know someone who would, through thick and thin: he's been lusting after a Chinese girl for many years, and that may be influencing his objectivity.

For the life of me, I can't see how any country, including Australia, can support the control of their utilities or infrastructure by companies beholden to another country. But maybe that horse has already bolted.

Joe

Paul1405,

Full moon? As has been said before, there is always a disconnect, a gulf, between what you believe other posters have written and reality.

You have often referred to your close relations and simpatico between yourself and your 'Aunty Lee Rhiannon'(Brown) and other Eastern Bloc Greens.

Hi Joe,

Back in the 70's I was always sus about that 'Hari Krishna' mob, with all their peace and love, communal living bunk. I sused them from the start, as a pinko, commie lot, not a bone of capitalism in em'. Not that they would admit it, they never do, but I knew better! Beating drums and burning incense, I say, its incense today, hard drugs tomorrow!
There they were running up and down George Street, singing "Krishna, hari krishna, krishna krishna, hari, hari,,," when there were Viet Cong everywhere, just ready to take over good old Aussie! Knowing they were communists, My Aunty Dirtbag would always say "Stick your Hari, and your Krishna, and get and thump that Viet Cong, like a good Aussie lad should!" As you know Commies were everywhere in those days, did you ever find any Reds under your bed?
I thought there were lots of Commie organisations back then, that wouldn't admit it; Salvation Army, CWA, Royal Order of Oddfellows... Boys Scouts, the R.S.L!,,,Quakers! Just to mention some of the more perfidious subversive ones you are most likely familiar with.

Only you Beach, only you!

Hi Paul,

The strange thing was that there were almost no communists around when I was growing up in the fifties: one family here, one family there, one kid in my class at one school, one in another. In the sixties, I used to argue with a couple running the People's Bookshop here in Adelaide, but never met any others, one or two. A group of us young blokes formed a sort of loose lefty group dedicated to working-class revolution, but that didn't get very far either.

So no, your paranoia those days was completely unfounded. Even during the anti-War demos, I couldn't quite bond with many taking part, they seemed to be more anti-conscription than pro-Vietnamese as I was. Once McMahon pulled out most of the troops, the anti-War movement seemed to fizzle, except (as I recall) one last big one here in January 1973. The War itself dragged on for another two years, but it was over as far as the anti-War crowd was concerned.

There was an attempt by some students here, in about 1972 or 1973, to form an alliance with 'the workers', but they had no idea what the hell they were doing. With their usual arrogance, of course they thought they did, but they were shocked in disbelief when I pointed out that most of the workers then were non-Anglo and not Henry Lawson's battlers, at least where I worked: Greeks, Italians, Yugoslavs, Lebanese, some north Europeans, a few pommies but they usually moved quickly up into supervisory roles. And none of them were all that left-wing: migrants usually aren't since they are understandably too preoccupied with just getting established in a new country and new language. Fair enough.

Or were you trying to be sarcastic ? That will get you a fine at some unis :)

Cheers,

Joe

the Communist Party of Australia and its Port Adelaide Branch.

“Ron’s early working life saw him set out on a tough course. He was a seaman at age 15. He succumbed to the Cold War hysteria of the early 1950s and volunteered for service with the Australian military during the Korean War. However, when he returned to civilian work on the wharves of Port Adelaide he met people with a completely different world outlook, people who looked forward to a world at peace and without exploitation; a socialist world.

“Eventually, the influence of these militant workers in the Waterside Workers Federation led him to join the Communist Party in 1960.

One well known to me in the early 70's was Laurie Carmichael, the best commo I ever met. A very smart man was Laurie and always had the interests of the worker at heart. Not to be messed with, when it came to negotiations, Laurie could turn the bosses into mugs very easily.

http://workinglife.org.au/2013/11/15/the-wit-and-wisdom-of-laurie-carmichael/

As for the Hare Krishna's my niece tells me they have gone legit, running a cinema up in Oxford Street Sydney with a $10 a plate (bloody turned capitalist) vegie dinner included. Nice said the dinner was okay, and so was the movie, but she'll stick with the Mormons.

Hi there PAUL1405...

Talk about a small world, speaking of one, Lawrence CARMICHAEL Esq. ? We were standing by, at a Union picket line, at the Cross, that had been organised by Laurie CARMICHAEL and William (Bill) MUNDEY. From memory a large building developer, wanted to tear down a row of the old terrace houses in iconic Victoria Street, to which the Union replied, an emphatic and resonating no !

As you said Paul; both Laurie C. and Bill M. were quite polite, nevertheless positively assertive when arguing with our boss, neither of them would entertain any of the arguments our Inspector put forth, in fact they both tied the poor old bugger up in knots, with legal justification and precedence, whenever he (Inspector) raised the fact that he possessed enormous 'powers', pursuant to that Court Order ? Talk about the mighty 'bluff', apparently it worked marvellously, as none of us were tasked with breaking up the picket line ?

By now the developer, thoroughly exasperated by this continual Union intransigence, had obtained additional Court Orders, to go ahead and start demolition of these old houses. But no ! The BLF and ors. had other ideas, and most of them at police command were too timid or nervous of starting some sort of riot, if we were forced to give effect to any of those Orders; thus an impasse had come about ? I was relatively happy, as I was earning, considerable amounts of overtime as a result of this impasse ! Ah they were the days.

Shadow, what you may not be aware of is government, once relied on these state owned enterprises as a useful tool to reduce unemployment. 50 plus years back, governments purposely over employed to reduce dole queues and voter discontent. Inefficient, but effective, was 40,000 employed by the NSW Government railways at one time. That is not to say government enterprise if run properly today cannot be both efficient and profitable. The Commonwealth Bank, as a government enterprise at one time, was able to compete equally with private banks.

Posted by Paul1405,

Yes Paul, & in the 50s, when I had a 6 months stint in Melbourne I could not once afford to phone home, so expensive was the government owned, union run phone network.

The worst possible process is government owned essential services.

Hasbeen, and so was the 1860 'Pony Express', and letters to England at one shilling each in 1790, with 6 months delivery. You are in a time warp if you try and compare telecommunications of previous eras with today. In 1956 private enterprise was selling 19 inch black and white TV's at 300 pounds ($600) each, or about 30 weeks average wages.

"so expensive was the government owned, union run phone network." Are you suggesting the private, non union run phone network was cheap? If so why didn't YOU use it?

Dear Paul,

«In 1956 private enterprise was selling 19 inch black and white TV's at 300 pounds ($600) each, or about 30 weeks average wages.»

Those were better days then. So many addicts lost a lifetime by television, watching passively how others live their life while diminishing themselves into couch-potatoes. So many families were ruined.

I share your FEELING that quality of life where the essentials are supplied and guaranteed by government should be better than when we have to depend on commercial enterprises that constantly change their products and services at their whim, offering no certainty, stability and peace of mind.

However, feeling nice and comfortable is not enough - one should also be able to justify it morally. I wonder if you are able to do so?

Once participation in a state becomes voluntary, once only those who agree with the values which a state represents need to abide by its laws, duties and privileges - oh then, the sky is the limit on what that state and its government can get involved in in order to benefit those who freely chose to be included.

Paul,

The single biggest problem with your argument is that the reason that there were no private telephone or letter carriers is often because to maintain the monopoly and prices, government owned businesses were legally protected against competition by legislation.

A prime example of rabid socialism is Juliar's NBN disaster which has effectively banned all competition for providing networks.

A prime example of rabid socialism is Juliar's NBN disaster which has effectively banned all competition for providing networks.

Posted by Shadow Minister,

Yes Shadow, & left all new residents in my area with no access to a landline phone or internet. Telstra are not of course expanding the exchange or network here. No work will be done until the NBN comes through & no one knows when that is likely to arrive. They can't or won't tell us, but being outside a metropolitan area, it is likely to be quite a while.

Shadow, the reason for many government enterprises being set up in the first place was because private enterprise was incapable or unwilling to do so. The post for example was of vital importance to all Australians, it required government to provide a service than capital could not at a reasonable price.

Hasbeen, as an supporter of free enterprise, you want socialism when it suits. In your case the provision of government services your not willing to pay for yourself and the rest of the remotes. Is that not the case?
"left all new residents in my area with no access to a landline phone or internet."
Remotes who want that lifestyle in the scrub or up a tree, should just have to make do with drums and smoke signals, or cough up the dosh for phones, internet and all those other services and benefits they want the majority to foot the bill for.

Paul1405, "Remotes who want that lifestyle in the scrub or up a tree, should just have to make do with drums and smoke signals, or cough up the dosh for phones, internet and all those other services and benefits they want the majority to foot the bill for"

Disregarding your use of false analogy (pub argument) that you seem unaware of and taking you up on example, would you be saying the same where occupants of islands that are not part of Australia are demanding Australian taxpayer assistance and getting it? Islands that have come and gone over the ages, but the present occupants have convinced the hanky-wringers that somehow Australia is responsible. Others expect roads and other infrastructure, just because, but no strings attached and no thanks expected.

What about Aborigines in remote locations some with one family 'settlements'. Are they wrong to be expecting the same education, health, public utilities that can be supplied through economies of scale in capitals? It is quite impossible to provide the services that activists and Greens demand.

Returning to your criticism of Hasbeen, he is criticising non-supply of the much-promised internet in a location that is not 'remote' as I understand from his previous posts.

The hypocrisy of some who would deny those they perceive to be their inferiors, believing such people to be unworthy of unearned social benefit, for example Aborigines in remote locations and occupants of islands! Yet these same posters believe their perceived social equals are entitled to the prevision of unearned benefits, example; the provision of telecommunications services for some in remote locations.
If you were consistent in your belief that none should receive any benefit not earned then I could understand your philosophical point of view, but you are inconsistent. Beach why is it good for some to receive unearned benefits from government, but not for others?

Paul1405, "why is it good for some to receive unearned benefits from government, but not for others?"

You have more front than a Greyhound bus. That is precisely the question that was put to you.

So, what is your answer?

Paul,

The initial setup of postal services, TV and radio, are fine examples of government investment in infrastructure. However, many decades later, the private sector is more than capable and willing to run these enterprises, and public ownership of these enterprises is not only wildly wasteful of taxpayers money, but harmful to the businesses that pay the tax.

Hi Paul,

Indigenous people in the most remote 'communities' receive the same personal benefits as anybody else in Australia when they are entitled to them: do you know of examples where they don't ?

But if you mean that 'communities' of five and eight people don't have a social worker or teacher or police officer, then yes, and neither do any similar non-Indigenous populations. A few months ago, The Australian ran an article about a 'community' of a dozen or so which was not being attended to by any public officer, teacher, etc. - and at the end of the article, casually mentioned that it was three miles out of a town.

Fair enough. Surely there must be some sort of rough and ready criterion for the provision of, say, a social worker, or teacher, taking into account isolation (islands in the Torres Strait, for example), remoteness, dire need, as well as numbers of the population. A school with five pupils ? A full-time social worker for fifteen twenty people ? Probably not.

I was amazed, when the Intervention was set up back in 2007, that many 'communities' had never had police stationed there - like most lefties, I assumed that pretty much every 'community' with more than, say, fifty people, had always had police stationed there. But no. That explained a hell of a lot about violence and abuse.

Reality provides more accurate perspectives, Paul :)

Joe

Hi Joe, again you fail to follow the conversation, and fail to comprehend what I said. Asking of me "Indigenous people in the most remote 'communities' receive the same personal benefits as anybody else in Australia when they are entitled to them: do you know of examples where they don't? Did I say they did not, I did not raise that as an issue, OTB made mention of Island and Indiginous, so I do not need to answer that question.

What I'm saying is there are those who would deny such people government services on the grounds of a belief that these people are unworthy, yet at the same time are bleating about government failure to provide those they approve of services, in this case to quote OTB "Hasbeen, he is criticising non-supply of the much-promised internet"

If you are philosophically opposed to government socialism, and hasbeen has made that point more than once on the forum, why then would you pick and choose, who should receive government largesse, that is all I asked.

Hi Paul,

Getting a bit away from the topic but ....

Are you suggesting that " .... those who would deny such people government services on the grounds of a belief that these people are unworthy .... " are in positions to do so ? Or are you simply criticising other people's supposed opinions ? And that it happens ? Where ?

I'm sure even you would agree that there are limits on how, what and where government services should be provided: if someone want to live alone prospecting somewhere out in the sticks, of course he/she should have access to any standard benefit entitlements, but perhaps no more specific services than anybody else in similar circumstances. Surely there is a threshold, perhaps complicated to calculate, but setting necessarily lower limits on the relationships between remoteness, population size and need.

I fully agree with my friend Sara Hudson in her Review of more than a thousand Indigenous programs, cited in today's Australian, that services should be on the basis of need, and that programs should be far more rigorously assessed and evaluated. Everybody in the business knows of how cock-eyed those processes seem to work, with the funding for effective programs cut (perhaps because they have achieved something, therefore ... ?) while funding for utterly dead-loss programs is extended (let's give them another year or two), and yet more Indigenous staff are appointed to swan around with no discernible duties, perhaps with a vehicle provided.

Anyway, back to topic. Where were we ? Wow, nearly a week ago: O Sung Wu's comment. To put my oar in:

* wouldn't most of us assume that it would be reasonable for China or any country, including Australia, to be wary of selling off ITS utilities and infrastructure to cashed-up foreigners ?

* as for land,

[TBC]

[continued]

" as for land, such as the Kidman cattle and sheep stations, it's overlooked that most of that land would be held on 42-year leases, it would not be freehold (although some is in WA and Queensland). So the land couldn't be 'bought', but the leases for the use of it could be, and they expire at different times, which would give governments some measure of control, if they had the wits (see below).

* of all infrastructure, one would have thought that ports would be very much off-limits. And that the port of Darwin would be even more so.

* do government responsibilities shrink the brain, create plaque or blood clots, cripple intelligence and even bring on Alzheimer's ? Has any research ever been done on that ?

Crazy world.

Joe

Paul1405,

As per usual, instead of answering the question that was implied in my original response to you, you duck and weave, purporting to have asked the question yourself.

However, it was your obvious bias in denying government services to Hasbeen that raised the issue in your reply to Hasbeen. See here,

<Paul1405, "Remotes who want that lifestyle in the scrub or up a tree, should just have to make do with drums and smoke signals, or cough up the dosh for phones, internet and all those other services and benefits they want the majority to foot the bill for"

Disregarding your use of false analogy (pub argument) that you seem unaware of and taking you up on example, would you be saying the same where occupants of islands that are not part of Australia are demanding Australian taxpayer assistance and getting it? Islands that have come and gone over the ages, but the present occupants have convinced the hanky-wringers that somehow Australia is responsible. Others expect roads and other infrastructure, just because, but no strings attached and no thanks expected.

What about Aborigines in remote locations some with one family 'settlements'. Are they wrong to be expecting the same education, health, public utilities that can be supplied through economies of scale in capitals? It is quite impossible to provide the services that activists and Greens demand.

Returning to your criticism of Hasbeen, he is criticising non-supply of the much-promised internet in a location that is not 'remote' as I understand from his previous posts.>
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 22 August 2016 11:44:24 AM

Now, what about an answer to that question, why is it good for some to receive unearned benefits from Government, but not for others?

Utter garbage as usual Paul.

Perhaps you could tell me what is socialist about wanting government the hell out of the phone/internet system. If it weren't for that damn fool NBN, Telstra, a private company as you don't appear to understand, would have upgraded around here years ago.

If you had just half a brain you might be able to read other posts & debate sensibly, rather than spouting tired worn out ideology, & accusing others of actually wanting any of it.

Hassy,

You conservatives can't keep going on forever with your ideological madness! You keep blaming previous Labor governments for all the ills you perceive exists in society. You spent 30 years blaming Whitlam for everything, now its Gillard and Rudd.
"Telstra are not of course expanding the exchange or network here. No work will be done until the NBN comes through"
Free enterprise is about going it alone, why rely on the government?

Paul,

Labor not only wasted a huge amount during the GFC, but Juliar in the last months with the greens legislated huge spending bills, and in opposition have blocked all attempts to reverse their largesse. So until labor and the greens actually try and reduce the deficit, they still carry the blame.

P.S. it is illegal to start up competition to the NBN.