HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrj@moria.cs.su.oz.au (Mark James)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Choosing the Prime Minister and the Ministry
Date: 24 Aug 92 07:52:41 GMT
Reply-To: mrj@cs.su.oz.au (Mark James)
Distribution: aus
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia

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?

Mark
From: mrj@cs.su.oz.au (Mark James)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Choosing the Prime Minister and the Ministry
Date: 3 Sep 92 08:43:27 GMT
Reply-To: mrj@cs.su.oz.au (Mark James)
Distribution: aus
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia

Thank you for your replies.  The idea is that Parliament controls the
selection of PMs through votes of no confidence.

How then can Parliament affect the decisions of the Executive that
don't require legislation?  For example, to force recognition/non-recognition
of a country, monetary policy, immigration levels, behaviour of government
business enterprises, etc.

Is the only method by threatening a vote of no-confidence?
Is the Executive best left alone on these things?


Mark
From: Steve.Williams@f547.n635.z3.fidonet.org (Steve Williams)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Role of Government
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:54:39 +1000

To: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU

 >> Are you saying the Medicare levy should be optional? Like all taxes it
 >> isn't, and to my way of thinking I would rather have this one specific
 >> levy taken out of my earnings to ensure my family and I get a
 >> reasonable level of medical care
 >> than go back to the "get private health insurance if you can afford it"
 >> mentality of the Fraser years.

 DYL> Well, I think everything should be optional, wherever possible.  It's
 DYL> nice to hear of your willingness to use your money to protect your
 DYL> family.  What Medicare allows people to do, however, is to use other
 DYL> people's money to protect themselves.

I think it it is optional in so far as if you can afford private insurance you
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.


	Steve.Williams@f547.n635.z3.fidonet.org
 * Origin: Info BBS - The place to get informed! (3:635/547)
From: pod@suite.sw.oz.au (Paul O'Donnell)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: What's wrong with lowering the dollar?
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:56:03 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd

In <chris.714179739@suite.sw.oz.au> chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:

>An interesting thread for this group might be some discussion of
>exactly how we managed to turn a respectable trade surplus throughout
>most of this century into a massive deficit in just a few years. The

Just a nit Chris, Australia currently has a _trade_ surplus, its
the interest on our foriegn debt that gives us a _current account_
deficit.  I'm not sure what caused the massive foriegn debt we
have.  I do know it was about $15 billion in '83 and is now about
$150 billion.  A breakdown would be interesting, presumably we have
had a trade deficit which has recently turned around.  Bond et al
haven't helped either.

>crucial change in policy (if it was policy) seems to have occurred in
>the late 1970s. As such either Fraser or Stone would seem to be the
>responsible official.

>Some commentators have suggested that a policy of encouraging imports
>was to counter the devastation for farmers that was sure to ensue from
>the minerals boom exploding the currency value. Of course, the minerals
>boom was all on paper - and we ended up with the imports and no exports.
>What's more, it wasn't the greenies who stopped that "boom"!

Which commentators?  You seem to be implying this was a policy of
the last coalition government.  I don't remember being encouraged
to buy imports although I was still at school when Hawke got in so
my memory of government policy of the Fraser era is somewhat dim.

Paul
-- 
Paul O'Donnell                           |So Avon, what does it feel like
pod@softway.sw.oz.au                     |to be a god?" (Blake)
Softway Pty Ltd                          |
Phone: +61 2 698-2322 Fax: +61 2 699-9174|"I would think you'd know." (Avon)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: vasans@ecr.mu.oz.au (Satish VASAN)
Subject: Tele-surveys
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 05:29:37 GMT


	The other day I was asked on the phone about answering a 'community service survey'.
I agreed and then was asked wether I was 25 to 49. Since I wasn't my father answered
the survey .  He was then asked what party he voted for and other assorted political
questions. My basic gripe , is, which so-called 'community service' groups need our
political preferences?! 

	This is in light of the 4 Corners program a few months back on how politicians kept
record of all people who answered such similar surveys and then flooded them with junk
mail once elections came around (God , do those boffins love mailmerge!).

	Is this practice widespread and if so , is it illegal? (Use of confidential info.)


Any thoughts , people?

							      ___
                                                             (0 0)
============================================================w==U==w======
+          __  _            + Get me at: vasans@ecr.mu.oz.au            + 
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby)
Subject: Re: The big currency lie
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Distribution: aus
Date:  3 Sep 92 01:48:34 GMT

In <1992Sep2.085239.15260@metapro.DIALix.oz.au> bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:

>I'm please to see that SBS indicated the exchange rate for
>about 5 different ones, including UK, Germany and Japan.
>
>Just for kicks, it's strange to see that the US dollar has
>been failry stable w.r.t the brass razoo over several years.
>Meanwhile, both have plummeted 50% against the Deutsche Mark
>and UK Pound.

Yes - strange behaviour for the world currency of reference...
For thos interested in this subject, there was a very useful
article in yesterday's (Wed 2/9) Financial Review which discussed
the background on European (read German) monetary policy.
Among the observations is one that the UK would really like
the pound to fall, but it is locked into the common exchange
rate system of Europe. The effect is a deeper recession...
-- 
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.
From: chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: NSW Court of Appeal exonerates Greiner?
Date: 25 Aug 92 09:08:22 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd

In <1992Aug25.015204.25364@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:

>I don't think exonerated is terribly far off, after all, if you leave
>off Mr Temby's "acted corruptly" statement, there isn't much left
>that the ICAC has accused them of. The Supreme Court found that Temby
>was applying his own personal opinion, not an objective view, which
>sounds terribly like "partial conduct" to me :-). Even the dissenting
>Judge found that while he believed that it was proper for the ICAC
>to make the finding, and to arrive at this opinion (hence his dissent
>from the majority opinion), he disagreed with Mr Temby's findings.
>
>Basically the ruling by the Supreme Court makes Mr Temby out
>to be a bit of a legal lightweight, which is somewhat scary
>considering that the position carries quite a good deal of power.
>On the basis of the Supreme Court's ruling, Temby should have
>stood aside pending an appeal or resigned to get the heat off the ICAC.

I guess we know where _you_ stand politically, Ray.

The crucial finding by Temby (and one which should be within the ICAC's
power) was that the behaviour or Greiner and Moore would have been
reasonably held to have been corrupt in any other area of society other
than the political. The court ruled that he couldn't make that finding
at all, because of the lack of tests.

What matters, of course, is how accountable politicians are to the
people for their partial behaviour. In the case of NSW, they were
immediately and devastatingly accountable. One could argue that if
Temby had left his statement without the part that you object to that
there would have been insufficient popular support for the independent
MLAs to carry out their threat - they say "no".

Finally, (and I don't know what they were saying in Liberal Party
branch meetings) the overwhelming community view was that the behaviour
of Greiner was outrageous. Had an election been held, he would have been
soundly defeated. Indirectly, the Liberals have scored by getting a new
clean-skin leader who might save their bacon, and possibly even assist
Mr Hewson in his tilt at Federal hegemony.

Can't have it both ways, Ray!
-- 
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
From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
Subject: Victimless Crimes (Was: The Free Market)
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:30:07 GMT

kerry@citr.uq.oz.au (Kerry Raymond) writes:
>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).

Yes, some people do suffer from other people's love of gambling and
alcohol and unlike you, I have no reservations on pornography -- some
people do suffer from other people's love of pornography.  However,
that doesn't mean these activites should be outlawed.  As long as
people do not engage in violent attacks against other people or steal
their property, I do not see how the state can be justified in trying
to prevent these sufferings.

A child's education might suffer because his parents decide to buy a
new car, go on a holiday, or give money to charity rather than buy
their son a computer.  Should the state force the parents to buy a
computer?  Of course not.

Besides, outlawing these "crimes" has the effect of pushing the
industries underground, where they become associated with real
crimes.  The effort to enforce the laws then involve huge expenses to
taxpayers as well as violations of civil liberties.  The experience
the U.S. had with Prohibition and now has with the War on Drugs are
good illustrations.
--
	Daniel Lam
	Melbourne, Australia

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
From: HISC9016351D@LUST2.LATROBE.EDU.AU (MAMMONE,Robert)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Choosing the Prime Minister and the Ministry
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:16:10 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.22

In <1992Aug25.030753.21162@mel.dit.csiro.au> ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU writes:

>  :
>  :
> The powers of the various players involved -- the Lower House, the
> Upper House, and the Governer (General) --  are ambiguous. In '75,
> for example, if Parliament had not been prorogued after Kerr had
> installed Fraser as Prime Minister, the ALP could have passed a
> motion of no confidence in Fraser on the floor of the house. Kerr
> would then have been forced to choose a new leader of the Lower House.
> Tactically, the ALP played November 75 very badly.
> : 
> :
> :
Actually, just to make a minor point on the above paragraph, the ALP
did pass a motion of no confidence in the caretaker Fraser government
and this was transmitted to the Governor-General, who ignored it.  
As soon as the Coalition passed supply in the Senate, an election was
then called.  Hopefully this hasn't been mentioned later by someone
else.  Cheers.
From: pod@suite.sw.oz.au (Paul O'Donnell)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Enterprise bargaining or.....exploitation of the workers?
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:21:38 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd

In <brian.714805943@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:


>	Interesting to see little comment (as yet ;-) on Kennet's proposals
>for "Industrial Relations" in the new Victoria that he's planning to build after
>the coming election.  I wonder why the Libs assume that workers will be able to
>enter into a bargaining situation with their (prospective) employers on
>an equal footing when they have no experience of bargaining or negotiations
>and still come out ahead.  Perhaps the Libs really want Australians workers to
>become "more competitative" with third world workers by enjoying the same
>exploitation that they do?

I heard an interesting interview on ABC radio yesterday morning.  I
missed the first bit as I was just waking up so I don't know the
full context but the gist was that Andrew Olle was interviewing a
guy from Du Pont.  They have a factory at Girraween which takes
bulk film and packages it.  20 years ago they were going to the
wall.  Without sacking anyone, they gave the workers more resonsibility,
allowed them to use initiative, reduced the number of supervisors
(to use his words "they weren't doing anything productive, just
clogging up the flow of information from the factory floor to
management), initiated an enterprise bargaining system (they no
longer have anyone earning the same as anyone else) and generally
freed up their work practices.  Although they had initial union
resistance, once the union realised what was happening, they
supported it.  They now have high morale, high productivity and
low staff turnover.  Their wages are within the top range of those
paid anywhere in the industry.  That's a funny definition of
exploitation.  Du Pont are closing a film finishing factory in
Japan to do it at Girraween.  Hmmmmm.

Obviously this requires sensible management, but enterprise bargaining
can work.

-- 
Paul O'Donnell                           |"You're just saying that because
pod@softway.sw.oz.au                     |you don't understand art."
Softway Pty Ltd                          |
Phone: +61 2 698-2322 Fax: +61 2 699-9174|     - Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: s8923098@macnab.mqcs.mq.oz.au (Josef WIDJAJA)
Subject: Re: Work permits for Kiwis...
Organization: Macquarie University, School of Mathematics, Physics, Computing and Electronics
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:29:33 GMT

In article <oFk6PB2w164w@Moneybin.equinox.gen.nz> scrooge@Moneybin.equinox.gen.nz (Glenn Murphy) writes:
|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.

Unfortunately, a lot of Aussies think that Kiwis have to have work permits
if they want to work here. You are not going to be very popular here, mate.

I am in favour of closer ties with NZ, so I think work permits for Kiwis
is not a very good idea (provided that Kiwis will not object to a merger 
of NZ and Australia and NZ becoming another state/territory of Aust).
:-)


--
 _________Josef Widjaja____________  
|  s8923098@mackay.mpce.mq.edu.au  |
|  Macquarie University, Australia | 
|__________________________________|
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: AIDS and the common cup
Date: 29 Aug 92 09:46:09 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

collins@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Stewart Collins) writes:

>ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:

>>Jesus said very clearly "This is my body... this is
>>my blood...". He didn't say "this is like my body" or "this is symbolically
>>my body", he said "this is". ...
>>
>In the same way, when Jesus says "You are the salt of the earth", and 
>"You are the light of the world" in the Sermon on the Mount, does He 
>mean this literally?  The simplest interpretation would lead to the
>conclusion that He was speaking symbolically, however you could 
>doubtless develop a doctrine that all Christians turn into salt, or
>some such.

One obvious difference is that the salt of the earth and the light of
the world are generalities, while he had the bread in his hands
when he said "this is my body". He was teaching using well know 
qualities of salt and light to illustrate his point. He was not
using the bread and the wine as a handy teaching aid.

-ricko 
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 05:06:01 GMT

psm@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Phil Malin) writes:

>>Ah, so God required man to sin just to keep his little world going?
>>What happened to free will?

>Not necessarily.  If the world got crowded then they could stop multiplying.
>I'm saying that this IS the solution but that it could be one.

It could be, but it worries me that God said "be fruitful and multiply",
rather than "be fruitful and multiply until there's no room left."
The only way that the command is compatable with the Earth as we know
it is for the animals to eat each other.

>Why, couldn't the plants grow again?, etc...

You must be aware of what happens when populations grow too large ...
the plants tend to get wiped out, the animals starve to death,
the plants grow again, and the animal population grows again.
Generally, this only happens when the population of animals is
allowed to grow unbounded, ie when there are no predators.

>>BTW, whatever happened in Gen 9, Gen 1 tells you to eat only plants.
>>How do you feel about that?

>What do you mean?  Is it when God says that we can eat everything or that
>we cannot eat meat which still has the lifeblood in it?

About eating meat after being told not to in Gen 29.

Fraser.
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: AIDS and the common cup
Date: 29 Aug 92 11:03:29 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

osborn@socs.uts.edu.au (Tom Osborn) writes:

>Well, what about herpes?

I have been in touch with Standards Australia, and they are commissioning
a study on the Australian Standard Dribble. With this, and my
new Communo-dose, we should be able to provide consumers with a
complete guide to the risks involved and legal release form.

The Communo-dose fits handily into a suitcase, and it is expected to be
almost unnticeable, unless the pump fails. But I think Communion 
Medicine might be a thriving new area of research for Australian 
universities: it might even provide more export income than multimedia
research. And it would get the money from third world Catholic countries
who consider themselves too poor for excellent multimedia
gadgets, but for some reason find communion beneficial. As far as
market reach goes, it clearly is an idea with legs.

-ricko
From: u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew William Easton)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Creation & Evolution - the great side issue.
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:27:41 GMT
Organization: University Of Wollongong

gja@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Grenville Armitage) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.021634.19620@cc.uow.edu.au> u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew William Easton) writes:
>>The important point that Callum misses here is that he assumes that
>>evolution is contrary to creation. I've stated it elsewhere, and I'll state it
>>again. It is not.

>I thought you started this thread by proposing that idea as an "I wonder
>if......" ?  What has made you more adamant, or was it someone else?

>gja

I also started it by proposing the theory that they were linked. Since then,
people have said that creation is a scientific theory as much as evolution is,
and that evolution is as much a religion as christianity. I disagree with both
ideas, and I have from the start. It is when people can't accept that 
evolution is a theory and christianity is a religion that they say they are
contrary. I was (and still am) open to religious evidence against evolution or
scientific evidence against creation, but neither of these have arrived. That
is why I am becoming more adamant that the theories are linked.

The Bearded One..... 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| u9264442@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au | "I've had enough of Irish Americans who... |
| 				| talk about the resistance, the revolution  |
| You've all seen a disclaimer  | back home, and the glory of the revolution,|
| before. Mine's the same.      | and the glory of dyin' for the revolution. |
|				| _FUCK_ THE REVOLUTION!!!"  	- Bono       |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: collins@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Stewart Collins)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: AIDS and the common cup
Date: 31 Aug 92 02:00:15 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>>greyham@research.canon.oz.au (Graham Stoney) writes:
>>>Do you know if there's any biblical basis for this strange metamorphism?.
>
>Jesus said (John 6:56) "My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink".
>
>Is there any way of saying it plainer? He could have just stopped at
>verse 52 ("What is this bread which I am to give? It is my flesh, given for
>the life of the world"), and we could legitimately just hold him to
>be using a figure of speech. But he goes further: not only is he 
>living manna in some metaphical sense, but he says his flesh is actually food
>and and his blood is actually drink, which he says we must actually
>eat and drink. 

 I would say that this whole passage is metaphorical.  It comes after the 
feeding of the 5000, and uses the metaphor of food and drink to apply to 
the spiritual world.  Jesus feeds the people physically, and then says
in verse 27 "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food 
which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man shall give to you,
for on him the Father, even God, has set his seal".  

My translation for verse 55 reads:
    "My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink".
                 ----                       ----

which I would interpret as meaning that partaking of Jesus is spiritually
lifegiving and sustaining, which is even more important than physical food
and drink.


Stewart Collins