HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rfeadf@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Andrew Finegan)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Jeff Kennett's victory speech - guess what?
Summary: Jeff Kennett makes blunder in victory speech!!!!
Keywords: Foot, mouth, victory speech, Jeff Kennett, amazing!
Date: 3 Oct 92 13:16:11 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au


Tonight (Saturday 3 October, 1992) Victorians have a new State Government.
It appears that the Liberal-National Party Coalition won approximately 62 seats
(Labor now have 26 seats) giving them a record majority of 36 seats in the 
State Parliament.

The Premier-elect, Jeff Kennett made his victory speech at about 9:50pm
this evening.

Now, for those of you who do not know, Jeff has a "bit" of a reputation for
putting his foot in his mouth. 

Tonight was no exception! I guess it was just a slip of the tongue (I sincerely
hope it was not a Freudian slip), but instead of saying:

"the vast majority of Victorians....."

it came out as (wait for it!!!):

"the vast majority of VICTIMS......"

I could not bear to watch any more. I'm not at all reassured by the old saying-
"You get the government you deserve!"

My normal "sign-off" is CHEERS, but tonight ....

Andrew


ANDREW FINEGAN   (Standard Disclaimers)     | RMIT Centre for Remote Sensing
Email : rfeadf@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au         | PO Box 12182, A'Beckett Street
Phone : (03) 6603274   Fax : (03) 6632517   | Melbourne Australia 3000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by
reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion
of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization."
					                    Petronius, AD 60
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh)
Subject: Re: GST - Bloody Stupid
Organization: CSIRO, Division of Information Technology, Melbourne
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 23:23:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.062504.15816@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>In article <chris.717651403@suite.sw.oz.au> chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
>>GST is also a way to get ordinary people to do the work of public servants
>>for nothing. Each small business (take the place you buy your lunch from)
>>will now have to do an extra hour (or so) of unpaid work each day to
>>calculate the amount of tax they now owe, and will have to deal with the
>>tax office bureaucracy on a regular basis to sort it out. Is this what is
>
>This is a Labor Party furphy, the way GST will be collected is that
>a vendor will need to send in a statement of turnover, for which they
>will need to pay 15% to the tax office. They will need to keep account
>of the items sold if they want to (and they bloody well should!) claim
>the 15% back on the cost of the items they have sold. (i.e. they
>only pay 15% for the value added.)

As you say, to claim the 15% back a business will need to keep records of the
items sold. I do not agree, however, with your implicit assumption that the
keeping these records will always be economically feasible.

The relative cost of keeping the necessary records will rise as the unit cost
of the sales falls. A wholesaler sells in bulk to retailers. Each sale is
therefore for a fairly large amount of money and there are few sales to keep
track of. Consequently the overhead in keeping the records is small.

A retailer sells items individually to customers. The number of transactions
is high, but the sale price of each transaction is lower. Each transaction
needs a record, consequently the overhead in keeping the records is high.

This overhead increases as the sale price decreases. Businesses which sell
many small items - such as many small businesses do - will find it
expensive to keep the necessary records.

Further, the cost of keeping the records will depend on the degree of
computerisation. Large companies, with access to cheaper funds than small
businesses, can afford to install sophisticated systems to keep their
records. Large companies also have the turnover to make such systems
economic. Consequently the cost of keeping the necessary records will be
lower for large companies than for small companies competing in the same
marketplace.

For these reasons, I can easily imagine that for many small businesses it
will not be economic to keep the necessary records to claim the money back from
the government. The cost of keeping the necessary records will outweigh the
return. For many small businesses, if they do make claims on the government,
it will only be by devaluing the cost of the owners time in keeping the records.

Incidentally, the cost of installing the necessary accounting systems to keep
track of the GST will not be a trivial cost. This cost should be bourne in
mind when evaluating the costs and benefits of the GST.

andrew waugh
From: pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander)
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:21:23 GMT

In article <9227313.20103@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> schuller@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Wayne Schuller) writes:
>Okay, I was just wondering, I have seen Labor voted in again and again, by 
>voters who appear to be afraid for change.

Hi Wayne,

You really ought not assume that people vote Labor because "they are afraid
of change" - that is a nonsense.  I will be voting Labor because although
they have made mistakes of judgement in the past (as have all political parties
at some stage or another), I find the policies of the Liberal party unacceptable.

Change, in itself, is not something I am afraid of, but not just any ol{
change will do.

Dey

Dey Alexander  -  Politics Department, Monash University, Clayton
Internet: pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au
Fidonet: 3:632/352
BBS: +61-3-569-1573 - EUPHORIA: Melbourne's Best Message Oriented BBS!

-- 
Dey Alexander  -  Politics Department, Monash University, Clayton
Internet: pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au
Fidonet: 3:632/352
BBS: +61-3-569-1573 - EUPHORIA: Melbourne's Best Message Oriented BBS!
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: GST - Bloody Stupid
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:06:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.121340.11665@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
...
> I think the explicit nature of the GST is one of its best features
> (I can hear the howls already from the average person about
> "complicated nature" of having a quoted price and then allowing
> for the tax as a separate item on every goods/services bought.)
> but I think it would be a tremendous step forward (with or without
> the trappings of GST/fightback) if everything we purchased detailed
> exactly on the docket how much the  government creamed off.
Could you quote a primary source? I have not seen anything to the effect that
the GST will be a separately costed part of the 'price tag' Infact, at the
moment it is illegal to price things that way.
Given that the explicit revalation is of no benefite to either political party,
or the beaurocracy, I would give it the same chance as the snowball in hell.

The GST will be 'exempt', 0%, or, 15%. This is a small improvment on 'exempt'
0%, 20%, and 30%, but will not stop the aguments about the boundaries and
exemptions. Infact, when you consider that services are to be taxed as well, it
opens up a whole new vista for new and interesting law and accounting...

~Paul

Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: lawriew@runx.oz.au (Lawrie Waller)
Subject: Re: Open LETTER to Oz Immigration
Organization: RUNX Un*x Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 00:45:13 GMT

In article <dyfl.717250630@munagin> dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam) writes:
>csh@newt.phys.unsw.edu.au (Chris Heath) writes:
>>By benefit to Australia, I mean can the individual advance Australia in
>>some
>>way that would make that person not an economic or social burden on the
>>country. For example can the mother perform some social or economic
>
>Not giving her any government welfare would ensure that.
>
>>Why shouldn't it? 
>>Were the people of Brisbane or Queensland of that mindset and elected 
>>their govt on a closed door platform then that is their perrogative.
>>Do you renounce your right to decide who enters your house? If I
>>was to head for Melbourne I could set myself up in your house and
>>you couldn't complain. Were you to do so you'd contradict your 
>>own argument.
>
>No I won't.  My house is my private property.  Ideally, I let it
>whoever I want, and I keep out whoever I want.  At present, my
>property rights are being violated by the government, since if I
>happen to have an illegal immigrant in my house, the state has the
>authority to come onto my property and forcibly remove him.  Can you
>not see the difference between individual property rights and
>majority rule?  I am defending the former against the latter.
>
>
>--
>	Daniel Lam
>	Melbourne, Australia
>
>In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.

So is Mr Lam suggesting the majority of Australians support illegal
immigrants- I very much doubt this! If you were to break our laws
like you suggest then I for one hope you get caught, the illegal sent back to where he/she comes from, and you end up suffering the maximum penalty our laws prescribe for endangering our society in this wanton manner!
-- 
===========================================================================
lawriew@runx.oz.au              |Friend is sometimes a word devoid of
Lawrie Waller-SYDNEY AUS        |meaning;enemy,never.(Victor Hugo)
============================================================================
From: 9121940f@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Another Miller)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Jeff Kennett's victory speech - guess what?
Summary: 10 Years of HARD LABOR
Keywords: Foot, mouth, victory speech, Jeff Kennett, amazing!
Date: 5 Oct 92 04:38:26 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University

In article <rfeadf.718118171@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU> rfeadf@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Andrew Finegan) writes:
>
>Tonight (Saturday 3 October, 1992) Victorians have a new State Government.
>It appears that the Liberal-National Party Coalition won approximately 62 seats
>(Labor now have 26 seats) giving them a record majority of 36 seats in the 
>State Parliament.
>
>The Premier-elect, Jeff Kennett made his victory speech at about 9:50pm
>this evening.
>
>Now, for those of you who do not know, Jeff has a "bit" of a reputation for
>putting his foot in his mouth. 
>
>Tonight was no exception! I guess it was just a slip of the tongue (I sincerely
>hope it was not a Freudian slip), but instead of saying:
>
>"the vast majority of Victorians....."
>
>it came out as (wait for it!!!):
>
>"the vast majority of VICTIMS......"

It may have sounded like a slip of the tongue, but it makes perfect sense to me!

[rest deleted]

>ANDREW FINEGAN   (Standard Disclaimers)     | RMIT Centre for Remote Sensing
>Email : rfeadf@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au         | PO Box 12182, A'Beckett Street
>Phone : (03) 6603274   Fax : (03) 6632517   | Melbourne Australia 3000
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"... I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by
>reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion
>of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization."
>					                    Petronius, AD 60

============================================================
Anthony S. Miller ($$$ TAXMAN $$$)
9121940f@lux.latrobe.edu.au

It's now a whole new ball game....
Well it would be if we could afford the balls !!!
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: Free Speech and ACP
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:55:43 GMT

apr110@rsphy7.anu.edu.au (Anthony Roberts) writes:

>The advert was a parody of the red background Winfield add with the
>league trophy. It showed a bronze statue of one child putting a
>cigarette in anothers mouth. [I only saw the add breifly and may have
>confused the details]. The cup was called the `Wind-failed Cup'.

[.....]

>Thus ACP's censorship can only be seen as a violation of free speech.
>The League paper has refused to allow appropriate and community sanctioned
>ideas to be advertised in its magazine. One must wonder whether a
>careful analysis of other ACP papers would yield a bias against anti-smoking
>news or views. This also raises questions about the influence of
>corporations on the news that we receive.

(1) it isn't censorship. Censorship is when you are not allowed to
publish what you want. Not having to publish what you don't want to
publish is called "freedom of the press".

(2) I doubt very much that it is an ACP policy. I just suspect that a
magazine devoted to Rugby League would have to have a death-wish to
publish something that offended the organisation (i.e. the NSW Rugby
League) who provide them with their bread and butter. They probably
decided that it was better to be solvent than correct-line. Boooo.
Hissss.... but understandable in these difficult times.

>Alternative sources of media that you should know about; Modern Times -
>a monthly magazine on
>current affairs and culture; Broadside Weekly - alternative weekly press
>based in the labour and 
>alternative movements; Green Left weekly - alternative views, paper of
>the Democratic Socialist Party.
>They will not survive without support from the Australian public.

Good. remind me not to buy them.

cheers,


--
Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.edu.au
+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit.  -- Seneca
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:39:26 GMT

jcollier@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier) writes:

>order of magnitude in all cases. An even bigger disaster is looming
>in the US as a result of Reaganomics driven de-regulation 
>of banking. Presumably this sort of disaster is perceived to benefit
>those who are supporting deregulation and economic rationalism.

Hmmm. Reaganomics-driven deregulation of banking. Typical of the facile
economic arguments that grace this newsgroup. Sure there was a general
deregulation of banking in the 1980s, but it was driven by a hell of a
lot more than the policy of one country, however big. There have been
books written about the reasons and consequences of the deregulation of
finance markets, but of course you just blame it on Reaganomics, because
you can't be bothered to read the books, right?

cheers,


--
Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.edu.au
+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit.  -- Seneca
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: ewartd@emu.insted.unimelb.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Club of Rome Warning!
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:16:03 GMT

In article <996200270@peg.pegasus.oz.au>, losway@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:
> 
> Information about and from the Club of Rome is scarce in 
> Australia, and one could be forgiven for thinking that this 
> organisation has left the scene. If anything at all does appear 
> it is - this has been my personal experience - more or less 
> negative.
>  
> Why is this so?

Much VERY important stuff deleted [go back & read it]
>  
> Again I ask: why don't we hear more about the Club of Rome? Why 
> don't we open more to the world in general, rather than being 
> forced to concentrate on mostly American-style moralistic 
> agendas?


Answer:

	1	What have they got to do with "market forces"?

	2	They don't produce _wealth_.

	3	Malthus was wrong/Julian Simon is right.

	4	Its too cerebral for our media.

	5	Hey, we went to Rio - What MORE do you want?

etc.  that's about all I could think of for now.  Sort of puts an end to
the notion of _H.sapiens_ as a sentient species.

Don

We'll all go together when we go - Lehrer
From: jcollier@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 09:28:24 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: University of Melbourne, Australia

In <9227313.20103@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> schuller@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Wayne Schuller) writes:

>Okay, I was just wondering, I have seen Labor voted in again and again, by 
>voters who appear to be afraid for change.
>I have also seen Australia's economy go down and down, with Labor in charge..
>I take it News readers are fairly educated.. so who are the newsreaders
>voting for? I mean, you arent all going to vote Labor again?
>I want to know who is best to vote for, but I mean compared to Labor anything looks attractive...

I can't vote, but when I look at jurisdictions in which parties with
policies similar to the coalition have been in power over extended 
periods, the economy has sufferred severely. Even when it has 
recovered, there has been a residue of inhumane social fall-out.

So I don't agree that compared to Labor anything looks attractive.
I think that is just wishful thinking. A lot of the economic
problems in Victoria are a result of incautious deregulation, 
just as they are in the US and Britain. I have also seen 
it happen in British Columbia and Alberta where I used to live.
It's deja vu all over again. I don't know why people can't learn
from studying other times and places.
-- 
John Collier 			Email: jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
HPS -- U. of Melbourne		  	Fax:   61+3 344 7959
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:09:08 GMT

c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill) writes:

>Would you care to give a list of countries that are financially deregulated to
>the extent that Australia is?  There must be some reason why the Australian
>dollar is the world's fourth or fifth most traded currency.

Take a list of the OECD countries. Then add a lot more. Every country's
regulatory environment is different, but basically all of them have free
trade in their currencies these days, and all of them have foreign banks
operating on their soil, and all of them allow their business to raise
loans offshore. These are the three things which overloaded the thinking
circuits of the people who run our banks and caused them to make such
big errors in the early 80s, the bitter fruits of which weare being
forced to eat now.

The Australian dollar is *sometimes* highly traded, because we are one
of the few countries with (a) a highly resource and commodity-based
economy  (b) status as a nett energy exporter. and (c) leaders who don't
spend a large amount of their time eating the carpets. In other words,
the Australian dollar looks good when most other hard currencies look
bad, and it looks bad when the others look good. Lots of Europeans see
it as a 'safe haven' currency.

cheers,

--
Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.edu.au
+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit.  -- Seneca
From: jcollier@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:00:29 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: University of Melbourne, Australia

In <2124@grivel.une.edu.au> gantony@metz.une.edu.au (George Antony) writes:

>Wow, with this kind of infallible foresight you would be much better
>off playing the stock market or speculating in foreign exchange.

If I were interested in money, I wouldn't be a philosopher.
-- 
John Collier 			Email: jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
HPS -- U. of Melbourne		  	Fax:   61+3 344 7959
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby)
Subject: Re: GST - Bloody Stupid
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Date:  1 Oct 92 08:05:21 GMT

In <1992Sep29.234035.27782@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:

>In article <chris.717723968@suite.sw.oz.au> chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
[ stuff about increased taxation ]
>>Religious Approach 1: Everyone knows that if you tax the rich they lose
>>incentive and you get a recession. That means we'll have to tax the poor.
>>
>>Religious Approach 2: The richer you are the more you can afford to pay,
>>and the more you are likely to consume. Make the new tax progressive.
>
>It is, if you consume more you pay more.
>
>>Practical Approach: New taxes are political suicide. If we must do it, wait
>>until after the election when you have 3 years to face the voters again, and
>>when they've most likely forgotten who did it.
>>
>>Which of these approaches is better?
>
>RA2 degenerates to RA1 doesn't it??? If you make the tax progressive,
>the rich will be taxed more, therefore loss of incentive and by your
>analysis, recession.

I think I'll rest my case here. I think that RA1 & RA2 are diametrically
opposed. Is Ray's the kind of upside down thinking that characterises
a lot of the debate in the media (including this newsgroup).
-- 
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.