One flag, one day and one country...

Mysteryman said :

chewy14 said :

Once again, Labor didn’t create the debt, no matter how much you want to ignore the economic reality.

Yes, they did. They were the ones who spent. You’re acting like a Labor government hasn’t done that before. It’s quite amusing. But by all means, give me details of this “economic reality” you seem to be privy to.

chewy14 said :

It also annoys me when people use some weird reverse logic to suggest that Labor overspent during the GFC because Australia wasn’t as badly affected as other countries. It’s because Labor spent during the GFC that we weren’t as badly affected. Their actions were well thought out and prudent considering the situation they were faced with.

See, here’s where you and all the other people still echoing Wayne Swan are wrong.

There are three main reasons that we came out the other side of the GFC better off than other developed countries. Firstly, our banks were not conducting the same questionable business practices as those in the US, UK, and Europe. They weren’t heavily invested off shore, and regulation prevented them from engaging in sub-prime predatory lending and other less-than-ethical investing so when the hit arrived in 2008, most of us lost no money from our savings and only a competitively small amount from our superannuation funds. The banks lost a minimal amount, and were in no danger of collapsing.

Secondly, and without question most significantly, is that China ramped up their building and infrastructure development in response to the GFC. The flow on effect was that Australian ore and other resources experienced an sharp increase in demand. Our GDP remained solid, and throughout 2009 China’s energy and mineral reliance on Australia grew massively, to the point where roughly 80% of our merchandise export was going straight to China. A huge increase on previous years. It made the Rudd government stimulus look like a drop in the ocean. We continued to experience favourable trading conditions that kept our economy kicking along strongly and prevented economic contraction.

Thirdly, we were in a very positive economic state in the lead up to the GFC. We had no debt. We had money in the bank. As a nation we were in the best possible financial position face the challenges of what might come.

Yes, the stimulus by the Rudd government also contributed. But its contribution was minimal compared to the other factors – particularly the resilience of our banks and the huge amount of business with China ramping up its stimulus and infrastructure building. The benefit of hindsight has allowed a number of economists to put the stimulus spending in perspective. It’s easy now to see that Rudd and Swan had much, much less to do with our performance during that time than their rhetoric has led you to believe.

If u want to talk about budgets and Gov’t spending, deficits, etc, the Labor/Greens ACT Gov’t has just announced that the projected budget deficit for 2014-15 has, not surprisingly, more than doubled to $772.5 million.

So, in context of the ACTs revenue base and given that the payments to the Light Rail contractor won’t start for a few years yet, thats certainly going to take some repayment – by Ratepayers I mean.

chewy14 said :

Once again, Labor didn’t create the debt, no matter how much you want to ignore the economic reality.

Yes, they did. They were the ones who spent. You’re acting like a Labor government hasn’t done that before. It’s quite amusing. But by all means, give me details of this “economic reality” you seem to be privy to.

chewy14 said :

It also annoys me when people use some weird reverse logic to suggest that Labor overspent during the GFC because Australia wasn’t as badly affected as other countries. It’s because Labor spent during the GFC that we weren’t as badly affected. Their actions were well thought out and prudent considering the situation they were faced with.

See, here’s where you and all the other people still echoing Wayne Swan are wrong.

There are three main reasons that we came out the other side of the GFC better off than other developed countries. Firstly, our banks were not conducting the same questionable business practices as those in the US, UK, and Europe. They weren’t heavily invested off shore, and regulation prevented them from engaging in sub-prime predatory lending and other less-than-ethical investing so when the hit arrived in 2008, most of us lost no money from our savings and only a competitively small amount from our superannuation funds. The banks lost a minimal amount, and were in no danger of collapsing.

Secondly, and without question most significantly, is that China ramped up their building and infrastructure development in response to the GFC. The flow on effect was that Australian ore and other resources experienced an sharp increase in demand. Our GDP remained solid, and throughout 2009 China’s energy and mineral reliance on Australia grew massively, to the point where roughly 80% of our merchandise export was going straight to China. A huge increase on previous years. It made the Rudd government stimulus look like a drop in the ocean. We continued to experience favourable trading conditions that kept our economy kicking along strongly and prevented economic contraction.

Thirdly, we were in a very positive economic state in the lead up to the GFC. We had no debt. We had money in the bank. As a nation we were in the best possible financial position face the challenges of what might come.

Yes, the stimulus by the Rudd government also contributed. But its contribution was minimal compared to the other factors – particularly the resilience of our banks and the huge amount of business with China ramping up its stimulus and infrastructure building. The benefit of hindsight has allowed a number of economists to put the stimulus spending in perspective. It’s easy now to see that Rudd and Swan had much, much less to do with our performance during that time than their rhetoric has led you to believe.

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

When Labor gained office in 2007 there was about $30 billion in the bank.

Correct. However, based on the economic conditions of the previous 10 years there should have been $300 Billion.

Claiming the Liberals under Howard were good economic managers, is the same as claiming the bloke who wins $2 Million in the Lottery and only spends $1.8Million is a financial genius.

I mean C’mon, he’s still got $200K in the bank right?

Isnt this about a flag?????

dungfungus said :

When Labor gained office in 2007 there was about $30 billion in the bank.

Correct. However, based on the economic conditions of the previous 10 years there should have been $300 Billion.

Claiming the Liberals under Howard were good economic managers, is the same as claiming the bloke who wins $2 Million in the Lottery and only spends $1.8Million is a financial genius.

I mean C’mon, he’s still got $200K in the bank right?

Mysteryman said :

chewy14 said :

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

It would be poetic justice to see Labor get elected and attempt to sort out the financial mess they created.

Except we both know they wouldn’t attempt to sort it out. They’d let it sit, and grow worse, and all the while they’d tell us how much better off we are because they are in charge. After all, what’s a $700b debt between friends?

Firstly,
Labor didn’t “create” the debt, it’s a result of 10-15 years of successive government policy and the GFC.
You could possibly blame Labor for some spending programs that were ideological rather than logical but the exact same thing is true of the current government.

There isn’t one political party in Australia that’s willing or able to actually make the necessary reforms to get our finances back in the black. They’re all to busy trying to sledge each other, get elected/remain in power and waste our money on their ideological wet dream projects.

Labor didn’t create our debt? Really? So it just materialised out of thin air while they delivered successive budget surpluses?

We had no debt when the Howard government left. We actually had nearly a decade of falling debt ending in increasing surpluses. Labor was elected and brought with them poor policy decisions, inability to balance a budget sheet, and a knee-jerk spending reaction to the GFC began a cycle of deficit’s that led to our current position. The GFC was not the cause (it contributed, but nowhere near as much as Labor claimed) and had Labor been able to manage money we would have made it out the other side without the ballooning debt we currently have.

chewy14 said :

There isn’t one political party in Australia that’s willing or able to actually make the necessary reforms to get our finances back in the black.

There is one that’s willing. Significant changes to a range of spending areas were proposed last May. They aren’t able, however, as the Green/Labor alliance is blocking everything in the Senate on principle. We won’t get the opportunity to see whether the policies work because they won’t see the light of day. Meanwhile, the debt gets worse and people can sit back and say “told you they couldn’t fix the budget”.

Labor and the Greens will have a lot to answer for if they win the next election. They created this growing financial mess, and now they are doing everything they can to prevent its cleanup.

Once again, Labor didn’t create the debt, no matter how much you want to ignore the economic reality.

It was a result of policies enacted during the later Howard years that increased recurrent spending and reduced revenue through tax cuts and extra concessions beyond what would be reasonable to balance the budget over the full economic cycle.

I don’t blame Howard for this all that much because the only other options available would be to engage on a large scale infrastructure program or institute a sovereign wealth fund to hold the windfall gains in revenue he received, which however logical would have been completely politically unpalatable.

When Labor got into power, they also couldn’t change these policies because of their “me too” attitude and because the electorate would have crucified them due to the massive entitlement mentality that had been cultivated for years. They also enacted some dubious policies of their own but these were only a small part of the problem. It also annoys me when people use some weird reverse logic to suggest that Labor overspent during the GFC because Australia wasn’t as badly affected as other countries. It’s because Labor spent during the GFC that we weren’t as badly affected. Their actions were well thought out and prudent considering the situation they were faced with.

As for the Liberals current efforts at budget control, I actually support a lot of what they’re trying to do. Policies like the GP copayment and University reforms have merit and should be worked through. But they too clearly aren’t interested in fixing the whole problem because otherwise they wouldn’t be focusing on only one half of it and completely ignoring (or in fact exacerbating) the revenue problem. There’s clear and obvious revenue measures and tax reforms that should be made but they haven’t even considered them, let alone started a real debate about what should happen.

It’s laughable to suggest that any of our major parties are solely to blame for the situation we find ourselves in.

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

miz said :

While I was glad there was money to counter the GFC, I still question how the methodology of money was obtained – mostly, it appears, from selling assets that previously belonged to us all (like Telstra) and had been acquired, over many many years, through previous generation’s taxes.

I think both Labor and Liberal federal governments have made decisions that are ultimately not in the national interest. What particularly bothers me about the Abbott government is its continual focus on sending ‘price signals’ to your average PAYG citizen and seeking ‘spending savings’ (without any consequential thinking about what happens if people stop going to the GP or can’t afford uni). Instead they clearly should be focusing on making the tax revenue collection end fairer by closing up glaring corporate tax loopholes and other rorts, which would more than balance the budget and simply make things fairer. You know it makes sense!

“….there was money to counter the GFC…”
I assume you are referring to the $30 billion surplus the Howard government had accumulated.
This was “rainy day” money and it was soon spent by Labor to defend us against the GFC but sending out cheques for $900 to buy imported consumer goods.
You fail to mention the money that was then borrowed and indeed continues to be borrowed by the current government.
This borrowed money is needed to fund Medicare, pay public servants, welfare etc. We even have to borrow money to pay interest on the money already borrowed. That is not sustainable.
If the Abbott government is guilty of only one thing it is their failure to spell out exactly how the debt is going to impact on our lives forever and shame those in the Senate who are in denial about it and prevent the passing of bills that at least address he issues (it will never be eradicated).

Borrowing is not sustainable if revenue doesn’t increase, however you need to look at the facts, not just political spin doctoring.
Spending has been at a constant of 23-25% of GDP for the last few decades. Revenue however has fluctuated from 21% to 29% of GDP. The real issue is we have is lost revenue. Chances are without any increased spending the budget will come into the black without much effort from any government.
I’m not saying they should do nothing, but they terrorising they do to convince people that its all bad, is very irresponsible of them. Australia can afford many of these things, unfortunately the current governments selfish idea that their taxes shouldn’t pay for things they don’t like. Ummmm we all pay taxes and I don’t like some of the things they are spent on either. We will never really know how much money is wasted on stopping the boats, on subsidies to mining companies etc.

People need to stop listening to political spin and start reading factual information from experts.

Are you speaking as a spinner or an expert?

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

The power they have is exercised regularly. It’s called royal assent.

I would only consider that power to be actually exercised if the option not to provide assent was ever enacted. Otherwise they are simply a rubberstamp to meet the requirements in the constitution.

If the situation with the current government doesn’t improve there may be an opportunity to wield the GG’s power, although I think it would mean blocking of the supply bills and the minor parties are unlikely to do that as they would lose their seats also.

Good comment. The ABC has gone into overdrive to have Abbott stand down claiming many coalition members are unhappy with him. Of course, the ABC never says who they are.
What you are suggesting is that the coalition wont be able to call a double dissolution (which should be done as there is a political impasse now) because the coalition Senate numbers wont be enough to stop supply.
Can a sitting of both houses achieve the result that is required?

Seriously the ABC is not trying to undermine the current government. Anyone except for the right can see this. The ABC is reasonably close to unbiased and at worst slightly left leaning. That is the problem with the current government. They blame everyone else and think anybody not thinking like them are biased communist greenies and its simply not the case. They have lost support or all the moderate and swinging voters that gave them the last election but now feel like they were conned.

The issue with a double dissolution election is the quota for election in the senate will drop from 16.67% to 8.34% of votes. What will happen is more minor parties will win seats, meaning that any senate impasse is likely to strengthened rather than removed. Also on current polls they’d lose the election easily.

Leigh Sales recently interviewed the French Ambassador on 7.30, after the Paris terrorist murders.
Her last question to him was “are you offended that PM Abbott did not attend the solidarity march against terrorism in Paris?”
The ambassador replied “no”.
Did Sales also ask the Ambassador “are you offended that President Obama did not attend either?”
No, she didn’t.
That is what you call sliming someone – it happens regularly to members of the coalition from the ABC and Fairfax.
You would have to be seriously challenged or in denial not to see it.
On the issue of who would win an election, I don’t really care because we need a majority in both houses for either Labor or the coalition for the good of the country.

I have heard a couple of academic talk about the bias of the ABC before. They said whenever credible research is done to see whether the ABC is biased towards or against a right or left government, the research repeatedly shows that they are biased against ANY government of the day. Thats why they are sliming the coalition now, just like they slimed the labor part back then.

One great clip shows Rudd throwing a hissy fit after Copenhagen in 2010, when quiestioned by Kerry Obrien. I encourage your viewing.

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

The power they have is exercised regularly. It’s called royal assent.

I would only consider that power to be actually exercised if the option not to provide assent was ever enacted. Otherwise they are simply a rubberstamp to meet the requirements in the constitution.

If the situation with the current government doesn’t improve there may be an opportunity to wield the GG’s power, although I think it would mean blocking of the supply bills and the minor parties are unlikely to do that as they would lose their seats also.

Good comment. The ABC has gone into overdrive to have Abbott stand down claiming many coalition members are unhappy with him. Of course, the ABC never says who they are.
What you are suggesting is that the coalition wont be able to call a double dissolution (which should be done as there is a political impasse now) because the coalition Senate numbers wont be enough to stop supply.
Can a sitting of both houses achieve the result that is required?

Seriously the ABC is not trying to undermine the current government. Anyone except for the right can see this. The ABC is reasonably close to unbiased and at worst slightly left leaning. That is the problem with the current government. They blame everyone else and think anybody not thinking like them are biased communist greenies and its simply not the case. They have lost support or all the moderate and swinging voters that gave them the last election but now feel like they were conned.

The issue with a double dissolution election is the quota for election in the senate will drop from 16.67% to 8.34% of votes. What will happen is more minor parties will win seats, meaning that any senate impasse is likely to strengthened rather than removed. Also on current polls they’d lose the election easily.

Leigh Sales recently interviewed the French Ambassador on 7.30, after the Paris terrorist murders.
Her last question to him was “are you offended that PM Abbott did not attend the solidarity march against terrorism in Paris?”
The ambassador replied “no”.
Did Sales also ask the Ambassador “are you offended that President Obama did not attend either?”
No, she didn’t.
That is what you call sliming someone – it happens regularly to members of the coalition from the ABC and Fairfax.
You would have to be seriously challenged or in denial not to see it.
On the issue of who would win an election, I don’t really care because we need a majority in both houses for either Labor or the coalition for the good of the country.

dungfungus said :

miz said :

While I was glad there was money to counter the GFC, I still question how the methodology of money was obtained – mostly, it appears, from selling assets that previously belonged to us all (like Telstra) and had been acquired, over many many years, through previous generation’s taxes.

I think both Labor and Liberal federal governments have made decisions that are ultimately not in the national interest. What particularly bothers me about the Abbott government is its continual focus on sending ‘price signals’ to your average PAYG citizen and seeking ‘spending savings’ (without any consequential thinking about what happens if people stop going to the GP or can’t afford uni). Instead they clearly should be focusing on making the tax revenue collection end fairer by closing up glaring corporate tax loopholes and other rorts, which would more than balance the budget and simply make things fairer. You know it makes sense!

“….there was money to counter the GFC…”
I assume you are referring to the $30 billion surplus the Howard government had accumulated.
This was “rainy day” money and it was soon spent by Labor to defend us against the GFC but sending out cheques for $900 to buy imported consumer goods.
You fail to mention the money that was then borrowed and indeed continues to be borrowed by the current government.
This borrowed money is needed to fund Medicare, pay public servants, welfare etc. We even have to borrow money to pay interest on the money already borrowed. That is not sustainable.
If the Abbott government is guilty of only one thing it is their failure to spell out exactly how the debt is going to impact on our lives forever and shame those in the Senate who are in denial about it and prevent the passing of bills that at least address he issues (it will never be eradicated).

Borrowing is not sustainable if revenue doesn’t increase, however you need to look at the facts, not just political spin doctoring.
Spending has been at a constant of 23-25% of GDP for the last few decades. Revenue however has fluctuated from 21% to 29% of GDP. The real issue is we have is lost revenue. Chances are without any increased spending the budget will come into the black without much effort from any government.
I’m not saying they should do nothing, but they terrorising they do to convince people that its all bad, is very irresponsible of them. Australia can afford many of these things, unfortunately the current governments selfish idea that their taxes shouldn’t pay for things they don’t like. Ummmm we all pay taxes and I don’t like some of the things they are spent on either. We will never really know how much money is wasted on stopping the boats, on subsidies to mining companies etc.

People need to stop listening to political spin and start reading factual information from experts.

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

The power they have is exercised regularly. It’s called royal assent.

I would only consider that power to be actually exercised if the option not to provide assent was ever enacted. Otherwise they are simply a rubberstamp to meet the requirements in the constitution.

If the situation with the current government doesn’t improve there may be an opportunity to wield the GG’s power, although I think it would mean blocking of the supply bills and the minor parties are unlikely to do that as they would lose their seats also.

Good comment. The ABC has gone into overdrive to have Abbott stand down claiming many coalition members are unhappy with him. Of course, the ABC never says who they are.
What you are suggesting is that the coalition wont be able to call a double dissolution (which should be done as there is a political impasse now) because the coalition Senate numbers wont be enough to stop supply.
Can a sitting of both houses achieve the result that is required?

Seriously the ABC is not trying to undermine the current government. Anyone except for the right can see this. The ABC is reasonably close to unbiased and at worst slightly left leaning. That is the problem with the current government. They blame everyone else and think anybody not thinking like them are biased communist greenies and its simply not the case. They have lost support or all the moderate and swinging voters that gave them the last election but now feel like they were conned.

The issue with a double dissolution election is the quota for election in the senate will drop from 16.67% to 8.34% of votes. What will happen is more minor parties will win seats, meaning that any senate impasse is likely to strengthened rather than removed. Also on current polls they’d lose the election easily.

miz said :

While I was glad there was money to counter the GFC, I still question how the methodology of money was obtained – mostly, it appears, from selling assets that previously belonged to us all (like Telstra) and had been acquired, over many many years, through previous generation’s taxes.

Assets cost money to maintain. Some of them cost a LOT of money. The government should be able to release its extra responsibilities through the sale of assets if necessary. I’m not sure if the sale of Telstra was a bad idea. I don’t think it was worse than the sale of assets like Australian Airlines, QANTAS, or the Commonwealth Bank that Hawke and Keating undertook. One obvious difference was that Telstra sold for a lot of money thanks to its position of monopoly – the result of the Hawke government.

Actually, considering the profitability of banking, perhaps selling the Commonwealth Bank was a stupid idea!

miz said :

While I was glad there was money to counter the GFC, I still question how the methodology of money was obtained – mostly, it appears, from selling assets that previously belonged to us all (like Telstra) and had been acquired, over many many years, through previous generation’s taxes.

I think both Labor and Liberal federal governments have made decisions that are ultimately not in the national interest. What particularly bothers me about the Abbott government is its continual focus on sending ‘price signals’ to your average PAYG citizen and seeking ‘spending savings’ (without any consequential thinking about what happens if people stop going to the GP or can’t afford uni). Instead they clearly should be focusing on making the tax revenue collection end fairer by closing up glaring corporate tax loopholes and other rorts, which would more than balance the budget and simply make things fairer. You know it makes sense!

“….there was money to counter the GFC…”
I assume you are referring to the $30 billion surplus the Howard government had accumulated.
This was “rainy day” money and it was soon spent by Labor to defend us against the GFC but sending out cheques for $900 to buy imported consumer goods.
You fail to mention the money that was then borrowed and indeed continues to be borrowed by the current government.
This borrowed money is needed to fund Medicare, pay public servants, welfare etc. We even have to borrow money to pay interest on the money already borrowed. That is not sustainable.
If the Abbott government is guilty of only one thing it is their failure to spell out exactly how the debt is going to impact on our lives forever and shame those in the Senate who are in denial about it and prevent the passing of bills that at least address he issues (it will never be eradicated).

While I was glad there was money to counter the GFC, I still question how the methodology of money was obtained – mostly, it appears, from selling assets that previously belonged to us all (like Telstra) and had been acquired, over many many years, through previous generation’s taxes.

I think both Labor and Liberal federal governments have made decisions that are ultimately not in the national interest. What particularly bothers me about the Abbott government is its continual focus on sending ‘price signals’ to your average PAYG citizen and seeking ‘spending savings’ (without any consequential thinking about what happens if people stop going to the GP or can’t afford uni). Instead they clearly should be focusing on making the tax revenue collection end fairer by closing up glaring corporate tax loopholes and other rorts, which would more than balance the budget and simply make things fairer. You know it makes sense!

chewy14 said :

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

It would be poetic justice to see Labor get elected and attempt to sort out the financial mess they created.

Except we both know they wouldn’t attempt to sort it out. They’d let it sit, and grow worse, and all the while they’d tell us how much better off we are because they are in charge. After all, what’s a $700b debt between friends?

Firstly,
Labor didn’t “create” the debt, it’s a result of 10-15 years of successive government policy and the GFC.
You could possibly blame Labor for some spending programs that were ideological rather than logical but the exact same thing is true of the current government.

There isn’t one political party in Australia that’s willing or able to actually make the necessary reforms to get our finances back in the black. They’re all to busy trying to sledge each other, get elected/remain in power and waste our money on their ideological wet dream projects.

When Labor gained office in 2007 there was about $30 billion in the bank.
The policies that were in place at the same time may have needed review to meet emerging challenges (the GFC was not one on these and Labor did not “save” us from the GFC).
Labor had the opportunity to change the policies but they did nothing. At the same time, they spent the $30 billion plus several hundred billion of borrowed monies that Australia will never be able to repay.
It’s their mess so don’t try and polish the turd.

chewy14 said :

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

It would be poetic justice to see Labor get elected and attempt to sort out the financial mess they created.

Except we both know they wouldn’t attempt to sort it out. They’d let it sit, and grow worse, and all the while they’d tell us how much better off we are because they are in charge. After all, what’s a $700b debt between friends?

Firstly,
Labor didn’t “create” the debt, it’s a result of 10-15 years of successive government policy and the GFC.
You could possibly blame Labor for some spending programs that were ideological rather than logical but the exact same thing is true of the current government.

There isn’t one political party in Australia that’s willing or able to actually make the necessary reforms to get our finances back in the black. They’re all to busy trying to sledge each other, get elected/remain in power and waste our money on their ideological wet dream projects.

Labor didn’t create our debt? Really? So it just materialised out of thin air while they delivered successive budget surpluses?

We had no debt when the Howard government left. We actually had nearly a decade of falling debt ending in increasing surpluses. Labor was elected and brought with them poor policy decisions, inability to balance a budget sheet, and a knee-jerk spending reaction to the GFC began a cycle of deficit’s that led to our current position. The GFC was not the cause (it contributed, but nowhere near as much as Labor claimed) and had Labor been able to manage money we would have made it out the other side without the ballooning debt we currently have.

chewy14 said :

There isn’t one political party in Australia that’s willing or able to actually make the necessary reforms to get our finances back in the black.

There is one that’s willing. Significant changes to a range of spending areas were proposed last May. They aren’t able, however, as the Green/Labor alliance is blocking everything in the Senate on principle. We won’t get the opportunity to see whether the policies work because they won’t see the light of day. Meanwhile, the debt gets worse and people can sit back and say “told you they couldn’t fix the budget”.

Labor and the Greens will have a lot to answer for if they win the next election. They created this growing financial mess, and now they are doing everything they can to prevent its cleanup.

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

It would be poetic justice to see Labor get elected and attempt to sort out the financial mess they created.

Except we both know they wouldn’t attempt to sort it out. They’d let it sit, and grow worse, and all the while they’d tell us how much better off we are because they are in charge. After all, what’s a $700b debt between friends?

Firstly,
Labor didn’t “create” the debt, it’s a result of 10-15 years of successive government policy and the GFC.
You could possibly blame Labor for some spending programs that were ideological rather than logical but the exact same thing is true of the current government.

There isn’t one political party in Australia that’s willing or able to actually make the necessary reforms to get our finances back in the black. They’re all to busy trying to sledge each other, get elected/remain in power and waste our money on their ideological wet dream projects.

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

It would be poetic justice to see Labor get elected and attempt to sort out the financial mess they created.

Except we both know they wouldn’t attempt to sort it out. They’d let it sit, and grow worse, and all the while they’d tell us how much better off we are because they are in charge. After all, what’s a $700b debt between friends?

And the ABC and Fairfax would cheer them on.

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

It would be poetic justice to see Labor get elected and attempt to sort out the financial mess they created.

Except we both know they wouldn’t attempt to sort it out. They’d let it sit, and grow worse, and all the while they’d tell us how much better off we are because they are in charge. After all, what’s a $700b debt between friends?

If Australians are friends it would be about $32,000 for every man woman and child.

dungfungus said :

It would be poetic justice to see Labor get elected and attempt to sort out the financial mess they created.

Except we both know they wouldn’t attempt to sort it out. They’d let it sit, and grow worse, and all the while they’d tell us how much better off we are because they are in charge. After all, what’s a $700b debt between friends?

watto23 said :

What I was referring to was for the GG to dismiss the government and call a double dissolution election, normally would require the blocking of supply bills in the senate or house of reps.

I know what you’re referring to, and I’m saying that is not true. “Supply” has a strict meaning in parliamentary terms. There is no requirement for the bills to be supply bills – they can be any bill, as shown in 1987 with the failure of the government to pass the Australia Card Bill 1986, which was not a supply bill. In fact, it’s almost impossible for a DD to be called due to the blocking of supply for reasons that are rather complex – essentially the budget timetable has changed since the 1980s and if budget appropriation bills aren’t passed within the 3 months of their introduction then the government would run out of money on July 1 and be unable to reintroduce them after the mandatory 3 month period, which is a requirement for a double dissolution. The double dissolutions in 1974 and 1975 were actually the result of other bills, not supply bills. The blocking of the supply bill in 1974 lead the Whitlam to choose to call for a DD based on 6 other bills which were already acting as a trigger. The following DD in 1975 was the result of the blocking of budget appropriation bills. As far as I’m aware, none of the 4 other double dissolutions in our history were the result of blocking supply.

Furthermore, bills that trigger a double dissolution technically can’t be blocked in the House of Reps. There is a constitutional requirement is that a bill must originate in the House of Reps if it’s to be a double dissolution trigger. That means it will have to have passed the House of Reps and been sent to the Senate, where the Senate rejects the bill, or sends it back to the House of Reps with a request to amend it which the House refuses to do. But the House will have already passed the bill in its original form.

watto23 said :

Whether you are rusted on for either major party, the issue right now is the government does not want to pass legislation that would pass the senate, because its against their ideology and their ideological based policies won’t pass the senate because they are too right wing. There are plenty of ways to save money and raise revenue, but none of them appeal to the government. Thats the problem we get when one party can get elected based on mazking the other party look bad and not making themselves look like a preferable government. I just hope this trend doesn’t continue, but right now, its the liberal government looking real bad and Labor doesn’t have to do much to get elected. It was vice versa last election. Nobody held the coalition to account for lack of policies, because it was all about Labor being bad.

The problem I have with that whole paragraph is that it seems like you’re just repeating Labor press releases and Fairfax headlines. Firstly, Labor made themselves look bad prior to the last election. Nobody did that *to* them. Secondly, you’re claiming that bills won’t be passed because the ideology behind them is too right wing. Well, one could just as easily say (and it would be just accurate) that those opposing the bills subscribe to ideology that is too left wing, and that is why they are being obstructionist in the Senate.

And yes, there are plenty of ways to save money and raise revenue. The government is trying a number of them. The problem is that none of them appeal to Labor and the Greens, and those two parties are why we are in the position of having to save money and find new revenue in the first place.

watto23 said :

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

The power they have is exercised regularly. It’s called royal assent.

I would only consider that power to be actually exercised if the option not to provide assent was ever enacted. Otherwise they are simply a rubberstamp to meet the requirements in the constitution.

If the situation with the current government doesn’t improve there may be an opportunity to wield the GG’s power, although I think it would mean blocking of the supply bills and the minor parties are unlikely to do that as they would lose their seats also.

Good comment. The ABC has gone into overdrive to have Abbott stand down claiming many coalition members are unhappy with him. Of course, the ABC never says who they are.
What you are suggesting is that the coalition wont be able to call a double dissolution (which should be done as there is a political impasse now) because the coalition Senate numbers wont be enough to stop supply.
Can a sitting of both houses achieve the result that is required?

A double dissolution trigger can be any bill, it doesn’t have to be an appropriation/supply bill. The government, if they wanted, could present a bill to the Senate knowing that it will be rejected by the Labor/Greens/Lambie/whoever alliance, and then reintroduce the same bill after the required 3 month period. It could be any bill that the opposition opposes. The opposition would have two choices: pass the bill they don’t agree to, or reject it and create a double dissolution trigger.

What I was referring to was for the GG to dismiss the government and call a double dissolution election, normally would require the blocking of supply bills in the senate or house of reps. The government right now has numerous double dissolution triggers, but usually you’d only call a double dissolution in cases where the polls indicate you would win or have a chance or winning the election and it would also dissolve the senate. The problem is, the senate is likely to be worse if a double dissolution is called. Labour Greens and Liberals would still hold the majority seats, but you’d get a few more minor parties due to the lower quota in the states when 12 senators get elected instead of the usual 6. So for the minor party senators to block supply, they need to convince Labor and the Greens, plus the chances of those minor party senators regaining their seats is at risk, except for Xenaphon who wins quotas not on preferences.

Abbott was happy calling for a double dissolution when he knew they were a good chance to win. Now he is a good chance to lose a double dissolution and a DD election is likely to only benefit Labor as they’d win government, but the makeup of the senate could be worse for either major party.

Whether you are rusted on for either major party, the issue right now is the government does not want to pass legislation that would pass the senate, because its against their ideology and their ideological based policies won’t pass the senate because they are too right wing. There are plenty of ways to save money and raise revenue, but none of them appeal to the government. Thats the problem we get when one party can get elected based on mazking the other party look bad and not making themselves look like a preferable government. I just hope this trend doesn’t continue, but right now, its the liberal government looking real bad and Labor doesn’t have to do much to get elected. It was vice versa last election. Nobody held the coalition to account for lack of policies, because it was all about Labor being bad.

“There are plenty of ways to save money and raise revenue,…..”
Let’s hear them then because Labor is bereft of policy on anything.
And the coalition had policies (stop the boats, abolish the carbon tax etc.) and most of those have been implemented. There has been need to change some policies according to changing situations and these are the ones that are continually knocked back by the Senate.
I would be happy for the GG to dissolve parliament because the country is going nowhere at the moment. Both Fairfax and the ABC are attacking Abbott because some coalition MPs are supposedly unhappy with them. Just as Labor won’t name any alternate policies, Fairfax/ABC won’t name the alleged coalition dissenters and the media never brings itself to account does it?
If Abbott did step down, who would replace him?
Labor/ABC/Fairfax should be careful what they wish for.
It would be poetic justice to see Labor get elected and attempt to sort out the financial mess they created.

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

The power they have is exercised regularly. It’s called royal assent.

I would only consider that power to be actually exercised if the option not to provide assent was ever enacted. Otherwise they are simply a rubberstamp to meet the requirements in the constitution.

If the situation with the current government doesn’t improve there may be an opportunity to wield the GG’s power, although I think it would mean blocking of the supply bills and the minor parties are unlikely to do that as they would lose their seats also.

Good comment. The ABC has gone into overdrive to have Abbott stand down claiming many coalition members are unhappy with him. Of course, the ABC never says who they are.
What you are suggesting is that the coalition wont be able to call a double dissolution (which should be done as there is a political impasse now) because the coalition Senate numbers wont be enough to stop supply.
Can a sitting of both houses achieve the result that is required?

A double dissolution trigger can be any bill, it doesn’t have to be an appropriation/supply bill. The government, if they wanted, could present a bill to the Senate knowing that it will be rejected by the Labor/Greens/Lambie/whoever alliance, and then reintroduce the same bill after the required 3 month period. It could be any bill that the opposition opposes. The opposition would have two choices: pass the bill they don’t agree to, or reject it and create a double dissolution trigger.

What I was referring to was for the GG to dismiss the government and call a double dissolution election, normally would require the blocking of supply bills in the senate or house of reps. The government right now has numerous double dissolution triggers, but usually you’d only call a double dissolution in cases where the polls indicate you would win or have a chance or winning the election and it would also dissolve the senate. The problem is, the senate is likely to be worse if a double dissolution is called. Labour Greens and Liberals would still hold the majority seats, but you’d get a few more minor parties due to the lower quota in the states when 12 senators get elected instead of the usual 6. So for the minor party senators to block supply, they need to convince Labor and the Greens, plus the chances of those minor party senators regaining their seats is at risk, except for Xenaphon who wins quotas not on preferences.

Abbott was happy calling for a double dissolution when he knew they were a good chance to win. Now he is a good chance to lose a double dissolution and a DD election is likely to only benefit Labor as they’d win government, but the makeup of the senate could be worse for either major party.

Whether you are rusted on for either major party, the issue right now is the government does not want to pass legislation that would pass the senate, because its against their ideology and their ideological based policies won’t pass the senate because they are too right wing. There are plenty of ways to save money and raise revenue, but none of them appeal to the government. Thats the problem we get when one party can get elected based on mazking the other party look bad and not making themselves look like a preferable government. I just hope this trend doesn’t continue, but right now, its the liberal government looking real bad and Labor doesn’t have to do much to get elected. It was vice versa last election. Nobody held the coalition to account for lack of policies, because it was all about Labor being bad.

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

The power they have is exercised regularly. It’s called royal assent.

I would only consider that power to be actually exercised if the option not to provide assent was ever enacted. Otherwise they are simply a rubberstamp to meet the requirements in the constitution.

If the situation with the current government doesn’t improve there may be an opportunity to wield the GG’s power, although I think it would mean blocking of the supply bills and the minor parties are unlikely to do that as they would lose their seats also.

Good comment. The ABC has gone into overdrive to have Abbott stand down claiming many coalition members are unhappy with him. Of course, the ABC never says who they are.
What you are suggesting is that the coalition wont be able to call a double dissolution (which should be done as there is a political impasse now) because the coalition Senate numbers wont be enough to stop supply.
Can a sitting of both houses achieve the result that is required?

A double dissolution trigger can be any bill, it doesn’t have to be an appropriation/supply bill. The government, if they wanted, could present a bill to the Senate knowing that it will be rejected by the Labor/Greens/Lambie/whoever alliance, and then reintroduce the same bill after the required 3 month period. It could be any bill that the opposition opposes. The opposition would have two choices: pass the bill they don’t agree to, or reject it and create a double dissolution trigger.

Bring it on!

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

The power they have is exercised regularly. It’s called royal assent.

I would only consider that power to be actually exercised if the option not to provide assent was ever enacted. Otherwise they are simply a rubberstamp to meet the requirements in the constitution.

If the situation with the current government doesn’t improve there may be an opportunity to wield the GG’s power, although I think it would mean blocking of the supply bills and the minor parties are unlikely to do that as they would lose their seats also.

Good comment. The ABC has gone into overdrive to have Abbott stand down claiming many coalition members are unhappy with him. Of course, the ABC never says who they are.
What you are suggesting is that the coalition wont be able to call a double dissolution (which should be done as there is a political impasse now) because the coalition Senate numbers wont be enough to stop supply.
Can a sitting of both houses achieve the result that is required?

A double dissolution trigger can be any bill, it doesn’t have to be an appropriation/supply bill. The government, if they wanted, could present a bill to the Senate knowing that it will be rejected by the Labor/Greens/Lambie/whoever alliance, and then reintroduce the same bill after the required 3 month period. It could be any bill that the opposition opposes. The opposition would have two choices: pass the bill they don’t agree to, or reject it and create a double dissolution trigger.

dungfungus said :

Over my dead body it will!

A two for one deal. What a lovely bonus!

gazket said :

Tell the Aboriginals one flag one country.

If you see many who believe that to be proudly Australian is to shun other cultures your another fright bat.

I are not agree sure what you say hear.

Is it worth having another try?

watto23 said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

The power they have is exercised regularly. It’s called royal assent.

I would only consider that power to be actually exercised if the option not to provide assent was ever enacted. Otherwise they are simply a rubberstamp to meet the requirements in the constitution.

If the situation with the current government doesn’t improve there may be an opportunity to wield the GG’s power, although I think it would mean blocking of the supply bills and the minor parties are unlikely to do that as they would lose their seats also.

Good comment. The ABC has gone into overdrive to have Abbott stand down claiming many coalition members are unhappy with him. Of course, the ABC never says who they are.
What you are suggesting is that the coalition wont be able to call a double dissolution (which should be done as there is a political impasse now) because the coalition Senate numbers wont be enough to stop supply.
Can a sitting of both houses achieve the result that is required?

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman, another way to look at the removal of the Union Jack from our flag is to create a flag that properly symbolizes the Australia of today.

Now, what that might be is up for much vigorous debate, but I would suggest that for most Australians growing up in the past 30 years, that has not involved being a British subject or thinking of ourselves as a British colony.

The Queen is a foreign figurehead whose existence, choices and decisions have very little, if any real effect on Australia and our society. Australia is now it’s own nation, not a branch of another one and our flag should reflect that.

For that same reason, I can’t see how replacing the Union Jack with the Aboriginal flag would be the way forward, though I could see how it could be relevant to incorporate some sort of a native symbol into whatever we come up with in the future. That future being when we sever formal, constitutional ties with Britain and the British Monarchy.

That would mean we would not have the RSPCA and the RFDS anymore.

Rubbish, they can still use those names, there are many republics in the commonwealth and in those republics are organisations with the word Royal in it. This kind of stupid argument similar to Australia won’t be able to compete in the Commonwealth Games anymore is what is wrong with this country. The use of factually incorrect arguments by the media and politicians because it supports their opinion means it then get spread as a fact when its just not true. that get passed off as a fact and most people are too lazy to check.

In the worse case the royal can be replaced with the word Australian and everything will be perfectly ok. Australia will one day become a republic, I’m not sure when, but probably in the next 20 odd years when the current oldest generation has passed on.

Over my dead body it will!

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

The power they have is exercised regularly. It’s called royal assent.

I would only consider that power to be actually exercised if the option not to provide assent was ever enacted. Otherwise they are simply a rubberstamp to meet the requirements in the constitution.

If the situation with the current government doesn’t improve there may be an opportunity to wield the GG’s power, although I think it would mean blocking of the supply bills and the minor parties are unlikely to do that as they would lose their seats also.

dungfungus said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman, another way to look at the removal of the Union Jack from our flag is to create a flag that properly symbolizes the Australia of today.

Now, what that might be is up for much vigorous debate, but I would suggest that for most Australians growing up in the past 30 years, that has not involved being a British subject or thinking of ourselves as a British colony.

The Queen is a foreign figurehead whose existence, choices and decisions have very little, if any real effect on Australia and our society. Australia is now it’s own nation, not a branch of another one and our flag should reflect that.

For that same reason, I can’t see how replacing the Union Jack with the Aboriginal flag would be the way forward, though I could see how it could be relevant to incorporate some sort of a native symbol into whatever we come up with in the future. That future being when we sever formal, constitutional ties with Britain and the British Monarchy.

That would mean we would not have the RSPCA and the RFDS anymore.

Rubbish, they can still use those names, there are many republics in the commonwealth and in those republics are organisations with the word Royal in it. This kind of stupid argument similar to Australia won’t be able to compete in the Commonwealth Games anymore is what is wrong with this country. The use of factually incorrect arguments by the media and politicians because it supports their opinion means it then get spread as a fact when its just not true. that get passed off as a fact and most people are too lazy to check.

In the worse case the royal can be replaced with the word Australian and everything will be perfectly ok. Australia will one day become a republic, I’m not sure when, but probably in the next 20 odd years when the current oldest generation has passed on.

I say we go to war like the Americans did. That way, we can use their “Don’t tread on me” flag. Problem solved.

Mysteryman said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

The power they have is exercised regularly. It’s called royal assent.

Forgive them their ignorance. It’s because of our education system’s black armband view of history teaching them to think that way.

Mysteryman said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

The power they have is exercised regularly. It’s called royal assent.

I would only consider that power to be actually exercised if the option not to provide assent was ever enacted. Otherwise they are simply a rubberstamp to meet the requirements in the constitution.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

The power they have is exercised regularly. It’s called royal assent.

Tell the Aboriginals one flag one country.

If you see many who believe that to be proudly Australian is to shun other cultures your another fright bat.

Mysteryman said :

Also, the Queen’s (or King’s) authority is a recognised part of our constitution. Talking about her like she is not relevant ignores the fact that our laws become laws when the GG, as a representative of the Crown, approves them.

Personally I think changing the flag for the sake of doing away with ties to the UK or the Monarchy is a waste of time unless we change our constitution and government first.

No assumption that having something aboriginal on the flag would be more relevant. I’d leave that up to the populace to decide. Personally I don’t think it’s necessary, though it might be a nice touch as one element if the flag chose to go down the path of having a number of symbols that are reflective of us as a nation. As would a nod to our British heritage as well.

I also agree that any changes to sever ties with the UK and the Monarchy should first been done through the constitution and government, with any flag change simply being a symbolic part of that transition.

On the GG (Monarch) signing off on our laws, well, lets be perfectly honest, apart from the Whitlam kerfuffle, the GG has been nothing more than a rubberstamp. They do not actually wield and exercise the power that they technically have.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman, another way to look at the removal of the Union Jack from our flag is to create a flag that properly symbolizes the Australia of today.

Now, what that might be is up for much vigorous debate, but I would suggest that for most Australians growing up in the past 30 years, that has not involved being a British subject or thinking of ourselves as a British colony.

The Queen is a foreign figurehead whose existence, choices and decisions have very little, if any real effect on Australia and our society. Australia is now it’s own nation, not a branch of another one and our flag should reflect that.

For that same reason, I can’t see how replacing the Union Jack with the Aboriginal flag would be the way forward, though I could see how it could be relevant to incorporate some sort of a native symbol into whatever we come up with in the future. That future being when we sever formal, constitutional ties with Britain and the British Monarchy.

A couple of things…

Firstly, I agree that removal of the Union Jack is not necessarily a bad idea. What I do think is a bad idea is the suggestion to replace it with something Aboriginal, especially under the assumption that it would be more relevant.

Secondly, the Union Jack represents a lot more than just the Queen. As I alluded to, so much of what Australia is now is owed to the British influence. It’s as much a historical element of this country as anything. It might not represent how a lot of people view themselves now, but it certainly represents our history and that which has greatly influenced us, as well as our ongoing membership in the Commonwealth. You say our flag should reflect that we are own own nation, and not a branch of another one, but I think that our flag accurately shows our current position – a self governing nation which is part of the Commonwealth.

Also, the Queen’s (or King’s) authority is a recognised part of our constitution. Talking about her like she is not relevant ignores the fact that our laws become laws when the GG, as a representative of the Crown, approves them.

Personally I think changing the flag for the sake of doing away with ties to the UK or the Monarchy is a waste of time unless we change our constitution and government first.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

As for Dungfungus, way to cherry pick a single line out of the OP’s article. She was simply acknowledging that to some people, the date of Australia Day is less than a joyous one and would appear to be an odd one for them to celebrate being part of this great nation.

If you had bothered to read the full article and consider it as a whole, rather make your small-minded point, you’d have realized she is calling on people to embrace the many positives that being an Australian and living in our great country brings to our lives, rather than focusing on the negatives, the what ifs and the have nots.

Classic Dungers!

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Mysteryman, another way to look at the removal of the Union Jack from our flag is to create a flag that properly symbolizes the Australia of today.

Now, what that might be is up for much vigorous debate, but I would suggest that for most Australians growing up in the past 30 years, that has not involved being a British subject or thinking of ourselves as a British colony.

The Queen is a foreign figurehead whose existence, choices and decisions have very little, if any real effect on Australia and our society. Australia is now it’s own nation, not a branch of another one and our flag should reflect that.

For that same reason, I can’t see how replacing the Union Jack with the Aboriginal flag would be the way forward, though I could see how it could be relevant to incorporate some sort of a native symbol into whatever we come up with in the future. That future being when we sever formal, constitutional ties with Britain and the British Monarchy.

That would mean we would not have the RSPCA and the RFDS anymore.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

As for Dungfungus, way to cherry pick a single line out of the OP’s article. She was simply acknowledging that to some people, the date of Australia Day is less than a joyous one and would appear to be an odd one for them to celebrate being part of this great nation.

If you had bothered to read the full article and consider it as a whole, rather make your small-minded point, you’d have realized she is calling on people to embrace the many positives that being an Australian and living in our great country brings to our lives, rather than focusing on the negatives, the what ifs and the have nots.

“Maybe one day we can get the day right and include a rightful and respectful historical emblem on our flag indicative of our countries true roots……..”
At the risk of being accused of “cherry picking” again, read the bit I have quoted where the OP wants to change our flag because she doesn’t agree with the history most others subscribe to.
How is that going to be positive?
PS. It was the British who introduced the cherry tree to Australia. That was a positive.

As for Dungfungus, way to cherry pick a single line out of the OP’s article. She was simply acknowledging that to some people, the date of Australia Day is less than a joyous one and would appear to be an odd one for them to celebrate being part of this great nation.

If you had bothered to read the full article and consider it as a whole, rather make your small-minded point, you’d have realized she is calling on people to embrace the many positives that being an Australian and living in our great country brings to our lives, rather than focusing on the negatives, the what ifs and the have nots.

Mysteryman, another way to look at the removal of the Union Jack from our flag is to create a flag that properly symbolizes the Australia of today.

Now, what that might be is up for much vigorous debate, but I would suggest that for most Australians growing up in the past 30 years, that has not involved being a British subject or thinking of ourselves as a British colony.

The Queen is a foreign figurehead whose existence, choices and decisions have very little, if any real effect on Australia and our society. Australia is now it’s own nation, not a branch of another one and our flag should reflect that.

For that same reason, I can’t see how replacing the Union Jack with the Aboriginal flag would be the way forward, though I could see how it could be relevant to incorporate some sort of a native symbol into whatever we come up with in the future. That future being when we sever formal, constitutional ties with Britain and the British Monarchy.

“We celebrate a day as Australia Day, which must cause deep-seated dislike and distrust in our indigenous population”
Absolute rubbish!
I know many indigenous people who see themselves as Australian only. The people they distrust are the parasites that divert government resources to keep the “reconciliation industry” alive. Most of us moved on from this many years ago.
It sounds to me like you will be wearing a black armband on Australia Day.

…the more relevant Aboriginal symbol instead of the increasingly irrelevant British one

Relevant to who? In terms of the Australian nation (which I might remind you did not exist 120 years ago), its governance, its economy, its social structure, its language, and nearly every aspect of what it currently looks like, the British Union Jack is far, far, far more relevant than an Aboriginal symbol. There’s no question of that. If you want a symbol of relevance on the flag, then replacing the Union Jack with anything else makes no sense. I’ve no doubt that most of the people calling to replace it with an Aboriginal symbol or colours have good motives, but it simply doesn’t reflect this nation, its founding, or its current state.

Maybe one day we can get the day right and include a rightful and respectful historical emblem on our flag indicative of our countries true roots…

And what exactly are those roots? Which parts of Aboriginal culture have shaped our current society so much more than British and English culture that we should change the flag accordingly? Don’t misunderstand me here – I think Australia’s (and the British before them) treatment of Aboriginal people was shameful, and damaging. But in my opinion, changing the flag as you suggest is little more than a token gesture of the collective guilt current generations carry for the sins of their forebears. It’s certainly not an idea that makes much sense outside of that.

Having spent quite a bit of time at the Tent Embassy around Australia Day (or Invasion Day as it was referred to) in past years, and listening to what any reasonable person would consider to be racially motivated hate speech from the speakers at those events, I can tell you that changing the flag won’t do anything to bridge the gap between peoples or to make things right (if that’s even possible).

On this Australia day I’ll dream of the day when we can do away with ridiculously divisive notions like “race” and “racial identity” as if they mean anything.

And there’s no real point debating the flag, anything you wish to change it to is going to be just as divisive as the current flag. How could you possibly come up with a symbol that represents this country’s “true roots”, whatever that means?
Anything that is developed isn’t going to represent the true history of this country, no one from that history is still alive to tell us what that true history is or was like. What you will end up with is a hodge podge of a symbol(s) that reflect what people think today and that represents people today. Are we going to change the flag every few hundred years? What exactly is our flag meant to represent?

I just think about what my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather must have felt in Sydney Cove on the day.

I completely agree the flag has been hijacked by a young and ignorant minority – but I’m still sick and tired of the annual need to debate it – and the need to dwell on past injustices, each and every Australia Day.

I’m hardly a flag-waving (or flag-as-a-cape wearing) patriot – and the footage of people being forced to kiss the flag during the Cronulla riots was the amongst the most despicable and infuriating things I’ve ever seen in my life. I’m personally in favour of changing the flag but I think it’s in the too hard basket…

However – my point is to enjoy Australia Day for what it is – not for what it isn’t.