HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: The Role of Government
Organization: Monash University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:32:27 GMT

In article <714642851.F00001@csource.oz.au> Steve.Williams@f547.n635.z3.fidonet.org (Steve Williams) writes:
(About Medicare Levy)
>go for it, but if you can't and if your like me, working 14 hour days to support
>a wife and 2 year old with one on the way and still only making around $35,000
>p.a then you should be entitled to basic medical coverage for your family.
>
>In the same way as people that don't drive cars still pay for roads in taxes,
>those that earn large sums of money pay more in taxes to provide services for
>all the community. If those people are allowed to opt out of the system then the
>revenue base for Medicare will be shot and we will be back to medical services
>by income and that stinks.

Of course, you argument ignores two things:
1) If the ``free medical service'' is so open to abuse and inefficiency
   then the reason why you can't support a wife and two kids on $35k may
   well be because of the extra high taxes you pay to prop up such a system.
2) Your line of reasoning removes all responsibility from would be
   parents - i.e. if you can't provide the kind of education and 
   medical care for your x kids then why didn't you stop at x-1?
   Put another way, why should you choose to have x kids when you know
   that in order to support them you are going to have to ask the rest of
   the community to bear the burdon.

Don't get me wrong: it's all a question of judgement of such things as
what is fair, what is basic in cummunity facilities, etc. Not to mention
how you still ensure people act responsibly whilst helping those
that fall foul of genuine unforseen problems. On the question of
medicare levy I think you are probably right (although I have
some reservations) - it's just when people use your argument
to remove all responsibility from the parent and put all on the
the rest of the community, that I object. Parents SHOULD worry about
the cost of providing medical services and ``putting kids through uni''
as part of their decisions about how big a familly to have. Somewhere
between ``free tertiary education for everyone that wants to idle
away their hours'' or ``free medical care even if taxes skyrocket
through people abusing the system'' and ``you make and live with every
decision'', we have to make a reasonable balance. In that scenario,
it's no longer cut and dry whether we should have a medicare levy
and complete universal health care or a system where ``free medical''
help is very tightly means tested and still involves some small
(co)payment to encourage responsible use. Get that dividing line
wrong and the majority of us will be worse off (whether we err
to far to the ``socialist'' side, or too far to the ``free-market''
side).
d.s.
From: cm@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Charles Meo)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The big currency lie
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:18:43 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: University of Melbourne, Australia

In <pod.714962147@suite.sw.oz.au> pod@suite.sw.oz.au (Paul O'Donnell) writes:

>In <6312@otc.otca.oz> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:

>>Am I the only person who absolutely *cringes* each time the 5 second news
>>grab on TV relates the value of A$1 to US$?

>No.

>Absolutely (This is one thing on which Chris and I actually agree).  I
>find it amusing when the news says something like - "The $US suffered
>heavy falls against the Deutchmark|Yen.  Consequently the $A fell n cents
>against the $US".

I'll tell you something else that really pisses me off: every time they
do a five second grab saying the trade deficit has blown out again.

WHAT IS THIS BLOODY THING?

I mean OK, it's got all these dinky components like 'invisibles', 'visibles',
'ostensibles' and 'risibles', but what, if anything, is the real basis of
the number? What are we importing too much of -- Porsches, paperclips, what?

I wouldn't mind buying less of something if the bastards will just tell me
WHAT! And, if it's losses due to the fact that most shipping and transport
is foreign and hence the money flows out, I'd probably sit still if some
faction proposed a plan, _even_ a long term one, to fix it.

Anyone else care to comment? 

Chuck
From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
Subject: Re: Tele-surveys
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:41:15 GMT

vasans@ecr.mu.oz.au (Satish VASAN) writes:
>	Is this practice widespread and if so , is it illegal? (Use of confidential info.)

I don't think it is illegal.  If you don't want to answer the
question, don't answer the question.  Political parties have a tactic
of ringing you up (getting the number from the electoral roll),
asking you what you care about, and then sending you mailings on the
subject(s) that you said you cared about.  I cannot see anything
wrong with this practice.  As far as I know, the parties don't give
the information to anyone else (certainly not to each other!).

--
	Daniel Lam
	Melbourne, Australia

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Why pick on the kids? Let's get the fat cats!
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:25:10 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain Sinclair) writes:

>ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
> >	We must clean out the whole legal system from constitution up,

>I don't get it.  How is changing the constitution going to alter
>the pay scales of unproductive parasites?

>Nowadays, whenever some short-term political problem comes up, people
>will chant "change the constitution, change the constitution".  These
>people have been listening to Americans' incessant blather about how
>great their constitution is, and have got it into their heads that
>ours needs to be rewritten into a document which can be pulled out
>at every political, legal and social opportunity.

Ian, maybe you have not read the previous postings leading to this post you
have replied to. Our constitution was written in 1901. In this period of
time horse and buggy and sailboats were the main source of transportation. 
Newspapers and letters were the only form of communications, only a small 
percentage of the population could have been regarded as white collar
workers. Now we have computers, aeroplanes, 80% white collar or service
industry in the workforce, televisions, impactive feminism, etc and all
their social implications. What governments have been doing since 1901 is
loading legislation over our constitution to force it to be relevant to our
vastly changed society.  90 years of legislation (and legislation to keep
legislation up to date and loopholeless) piles up and requires a larger and
larger industry to enforce, interpret and advise about it.  What is worse is
in our free information age more people become aware that abusing the complex 
system, which no-one could no in it's entirety,
is the best way to feather one's own nest. We need a constitution (and
heaven forbid it be based on the American constitution. Who wants to go the
way of America?) which reflects the structure and needs of today's society,
eliminates the Victorian attitudes our outdated constitution espouses. This
is just the tip of the iceberg there a numerous reasons for changing the
constitution which are valid and real and I feel imperative. 
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: kerry@citr.uq.oz.au (Kerry Raymond)
Subject: Re: The Free Market (was Re: Compulsory Voting)
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:55:20 GMT

dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam) writes:

>Such agencies would be less likely than state-run police forces to
>harass people for "victimless crimes".  It's all very well for
>zealots to want to ban pornography, gambling, and alcohol, but
>they're not going to be so loud if they have to bear the cost of
>these bans.

Are pornography, gambling, and alcohol victimless crimes?

Certainly some people do suffer from other people's love of gambling
and alcohol (I'll reserve judgement on pornography).
From: chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: NSW Court of Appeal exonerates Greiner?
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:59:09 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd

In <1992Aug28.054327.29181@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:

>In article <chris.714917479@suite.sw.oz.au> chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
>
>>the very first [ICAC] case involved corruption in a Liberal controlled council
>>(Waverley), then it was the National party's coastal real-estate deals,
>>and so on...
>
>That is right, it only dealt with the current term of government, surprise
>surprise it will hassle more Liberals (is the council Liberal controlled
>or Civic Reform?).

Not it was Liberal, and it referred to events in the period 1983-87,
prior to the "horizon" you referred to. I can lend you a copy of the
report if you like.

The council official and the developer involved appealed all the way
to the High Court as to whether the ICAC had the right to make a finding
about them, and as to whether evidence given to the ICAC was admissable
in subsequent court proceedings. No-one lost their job as a result,
though the developer's companies subsequently went into liquidation.
Prosecutions are _still_ pending some 5 years later...

>>"Very courageous, Minister".

>I take this to mean that you think Greiner deserved what he got for
>an honest attempt to clean up corruption with a body such as ICAC.

He clearly failed to take into account (stupidity or miscalculation,
whichever you prefer) the power of the thing he had set up, and how
his actions (corrupt or stupid) would be judged.

>He can't help it if after $30 million the morons that control the
>organisation have not come up with any substantial corruption, with
>their best effort to date being the selling or interchanging of
>supposed "private" data between large financial organisations, and
>of course the wrongful dismissal of a Premier. Excellent stats so far.

It seems to me that the problem is not with the "morons" in the ICAC,
but with flaws in the ICAC legislation which have allowed enormous
delays in prosecutions whilst appeals against the constitutionality
of the ICAC are heard. The major problem is the admissibility of
evidence, which means that corrupt officials can spill the beans on
their activities and escape prosecution as the evidence then can't be
used against them.

I think the ICAC has a much better track record than you suggest.
Perhaps you have swallowed all the propaganda from the Liberals
and Nationals who now want to emasculate it _because_ of its success.
Which is how we got into this "debate" in the first place...

Chris
-- 
Chris Maltby - Softway Pty Ltd		Internet: chris@softway.sw.oz.au

PHONE:	+61-2-698-2322	"I'm waiting for X-Windows to become just that;
FAX:	+61-2-699-9174	 Ex-Windows" - A McGrath.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Work permits for Kiwis...
From: scrooge@Moneybin.equinox.gen.nz (Glenn Murphy)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 07:41:23   M
Organization: Not organised at all.

What do you Aussies think about the proposal for Kiwis working in Australia 
to have to have work permits? As a prospective New Zealand worker in Aussie 
(Sydney in particular) I wonder what the locals think?

Glenn.
From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
Subject: Re: Choosing the Prime Minister and the Ministry
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 00:22:09 GMT

mrj@moria.cs.su.oz.au (Mark James) writes:

>The Australian Constitution states that the ministry is appointed
>by the Governor-General, and it has been formalised that the
>GG should take advice from the Prime Minister alone.
>But who chooses the Prime Minister?  Does/Can the Parliament act to choose
>the PM and hence the ministry?

Well, Parliament does not actually choose the PM, but (the House of
Reps, that is) has the power to effectively remove a PM by passing a
motion of no confidence.  Under some circumstances (e.g. Whitlam),
the Senate may be able to do the same, but that is contested, and, in
any case, extremely rare.

Practically, the PM is the leader of the party or coaltion of parties
which has a majority of seats in the HoR.  I don't think there will
be any problem in determining who the next PM will be: it's either
going to be the Labor leader of the Liberal leader.

Theoretically, all sorts of interesting questions can be raised.
What if no one has a majority and no one is willing to form a
coalition.  What is Parliament is prepared to support more than one
PM?  What if Parliament decides to express no confidence in
everybody?  What if the PM refuses to resign after a vote of no
confidence?  Is the GG still going to follow the advice of his
ministers.

In short, in theory the GG chooses the PM.  In reality, the people do
(from 2 alternatives that is).

--
	Daniel Lam
	Melbourne, Australia

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Why pick on the kids? Let's get the fat cats!
Keywords: overpaid salary-cap wages tax complexity
Organization: Monash University
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:22:47 GMT

In article <ednclark.714832071@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>	Finally, there is nothing wrong with free education and increased
>education for the masses so long as it doesn't come hand in hand
>with an expectation of a highly payed, high status job and a
>non-acceptance of physical labour employment when the opportunity
>presents itself.
I agree with your last part. However, the bald statement ``there is
nothing wrong with free education and increased education for the masses''
is obviously wrong without further provisos/qualifiers. What do you
mean by free education? Tuition free? What level of support for
living expenses? For how long? For what courses? etc. The complete
lack of an ability to come to grips with these issues is what really
gripes me when we have people bandying about phrases like 
``education is a right not a privilege''. Without giving sensible
answers to what I have just asked, such phrases are at best
meaningless.
d.s.

Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
Subject: Re: Support What Property Rights???
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 04:24:12 GMT

cwarren@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:

>      CAPITALIST PROPERTY IS NATURAL PROPERTY BUT SUBSEQUENTLY MISUSED
>      BY SOME TO EXTRACT ADDITIONAL "CAPITALIST PROFIT" FROM OTHERS.

>      CAPITALIST PROFIT IS PROFIT IN EXCESS OF THE NATURAL RATE ITSELF
>      BASED ON THE RATE OF REAL ECONOMIC GROWTH.  CAPITALIST PROFIT IS
>      ACCUMULATED BY EXPROPRIATING THE WEALTH PRODUCED BY OTHERS.

Can you please explain the concept of expropriation of wealth created
by others?  Do the capitalists break into workers' houses and steal
their belongings?  As I understand it, workers generally get paid for
their work, and they're under no obligation to accept any particular
job or wage.

>      NO EXPROPRIATION - NO CAPITALISM.  NO CAPITALISM - NO CAPITALIST
>      PROPERTY.  NO CAPITALIST PROPERTY - NO CAPITALIST PROPERTY RIGHTS. 
>      NO CAPITALIST PROPERTY RIGHTS - NO SUTER.

Impressive train of thought.  I have to study it thoroughly.  Do you
always have to be so abusive of us evil capitalist pigs?
--
	Daniel Lam
	Melbourne, Australia

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
From: mrj@cs.su.oz.au (Mark James)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The big currency lie + foreign debt
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:52:47 GMT
Reply-To: mrj@cs.su.oz.au (Mark James)
Distribution: aus
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia

In article <3045@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU> cm@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Charles Meo) writes:
>
>I'll tell you something else that really pisses me off: every time they
>do a five second grab saying the trade deficit has blown out again.
>
>WHAT IS THIS BLOODY THING?
>
>I mean OK, it's got all these dinky components like 'invisibles', 'visibles',
>'ostensibles' and 'risibles', but what, if anything, is the real basis of
>the number? What are we importing too much of -- Porsches, paperclips, what?

I'd also like a breakdown of our foreign debt.  If we, as a nation,
have borrowed so much that we have to borrow more just to pay the
interest, and that most individuals and corporations have borrowed
within their means, who are the ones that have borrowed so much
more than they could afford?

Is it just these loans that are the real problem, and it doesn't matter 
that, beacuse of our low savings ratio, a large part of all borrowing
must come from overseas.  Capital is just another commodity
for which a fee (interest) is charged, and we are just missing out on
getting a cut of this action because we don't want to save.  Is the
government interested in limiting the foreign debt simply to restrict
the number of defaulters which give the country a bad name,
forcing higher interest rate or recall of other sound loans?

Would we have been better off if the boom had been allowed to work itself
out rather than using high interest rates th attempt to reign in the
level of borrowing?  Much of the slowness of the present recovery is
caused by companies and individuals using income to pay off debt rather
than on consumption.  Maybe the recession was created to ensure that
the borrowing spree was trucated, preventing an even more severe recession
during a prelonged "pay back" phase.

Mark James                                   |  EMAIL : mrj@cs.su.oz.au  |
Basser Department of Computer Science, F09   |  PHONE : +61-2-692-4276   |
The University of Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA  |  FAX   : +61-2-692-3838   |
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain Sinclair)
Subject: Re: Why pick on the kids? Let's get the fat cats!
Reply-To: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
Date:  1 Sep 92 02:42:29 GMT

ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
 >	We must clean out the whole legal system from constitution up,

I don't get it.  How is changing the constitution going to alter
the pay scales of unproductive parasites?

Nowadays, whenever some short-term political problem comes up, people
will chant "change the constitution, change the constitution".  These
people have been listening to Americans' incessant blather about how
great their constitution is, and have got it into their heads that
ours needs to be rewritten into a document which can be pulled out
at every political, legal and social opportunity.


--
 Iain Sinclair    axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au
 $@0N0G(J $@?<9HNn(J  
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Support What Property Rights???
Organization: Monash University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:34:09 GMT

In article <996200267@peg.pegasus.oz.au> cwarren@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>            Capitalist Property
>            
>            Contrary to what Lam and Suter think, a sensible description
>            of capitalist property, as distinguished from other forms of
>            property such as, feudal property, anarchist property, and
>            socialist co-operative property, is not something to be
>            churned out overnight.
>            
>            Those who cry for such a thing have not in the past showed
>            any ability what-so-ever to follow even the simplest line of
>            logic.  For them, their beliefs and crypto-capitalist
>            ideology are more important than any amount of world
>            reality.
Now we are not prone to exageration are we Chris. Do I really weep?
Do I really show no ability what-so-ever to follow even the simplest
line of logic? You show no ability to write in the manner of a respectable
discourse. Instead we have exageration, wild flights of the imagination,
ramblings, rantings; of which the above paragraph is only a mild example.
>            
>            However some points ought to be made.
(over 100 meaningless lines - that could well have been churned out
overnight) deleted.
But still no definition of capitalist property. Is that what you learnt
in your political science course Chris (evade the issues and bury
them with bull-shit)?
d.s.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: Christopher.Vance@adfa.oz.au (Christopher JS Vance)
Subject: Re: Choosing the Prime Minister and the Ministry
Originator: cjsv@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au
Organization: Computer Science, University College, UNSW/ADFA, Canberra, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 12:07:20 GMT

In article <17d09tINNee0@munnari.OZ.AU> taso@munnari.OZ.AU (Taso Hatzi) writes:
| That can't be right. Kerr dismissed Whitlam and appointed Fraser PM on 
| the understanding that he call an election ASAP. He could just
| as easily have removed Fraser if he didn't behave himself. It is 
| no more than a generally accepted convention that the GG appoints 
| the Leader of the party which controls the House of Reps as PM. 

s.62 says that the GG chooses the Federal Executive Council and that
they hold office at his pleasure.  Convention determines his pleasure.

s.63 says that things tend to happen when the GG does things with the
advice of the Executive Council.  The Constitution doesn't say he has
to take their advice.  Convention might.

s.64 indicates that a person can be a Minister of State for 3 months
without even being in Parliament, and that all Ministers are members
of the Executive Council (but not vice versa).

Even if the GG has to take the advice of the executive council,
there's nothing to say that the number of Ministers on it needs to
exceed the number of other people on it.  I mean the GG is on it, and
he's definitely not in Parliament, is he?  There's nothing in the
Constitution about how the Executive Council votes or if the vote at
all.

The fact that the GG is scared to choose ministers other than the way
it happens now doesn't mean it can't change.  Of course, he'd need to
cut the phone lines to Buck Palace and use the army (which is his to
command) to put the PM in prison...

And he can stop the Parliament from sitting, too, if he doesn't want
them choosing somebody he doesn't like. (s.5)

The GG rules de jure, but the PM de facto (since convention has it
that the GG does what the PM says).

-- Christopher
Newsgroups: aus.politics