HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: ALP in the Lead
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:17:45 CST
 <1dnb0vINNm09@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au> <1992Nov11.065725.19744@runx.oz.au> <1992Nov11.220136.9022@cs.su.oz.au>
Distribution: aus

allanc@cs.su.oz.au (Restless Wanderer) writes:

>Just a note to voice(?) my personal disapproval at our moralistic PM.
>I mean ,from a man who uses terms such as " scum sucking ","pigs"
>"gutless,spinless cretins " in parliament.
>Now comes his moral outrage about his own inability to control what his
>children watch on tv.

>How dare such an arsewipe,force his ineptitude upon the rest of the
>country.
>If he doesn't want to watch whats on tv,turn it OFF.

>DOWN with censorship. !!!!!!!!!
>(ah well,I feel better now)

Absolutely. I think one of the worst examples of behaviour
on television is the PM's verbal abuse(violence), Senator
Evan's sleezy inuendo and Senator Bishop's slander.

God save us from the censorship lobby. Mind you I do agree
with accurate classifications.

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:03:21 CST
 <1992Nov5.132532.164999@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> <1992Nov5.073018.29208@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>

suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:

>You attribute this to compulsory voting?
Mostly.


>>We are lucky in Australia that the government can not afford
>>to ignore any group in the community.
>Yeah? Gee, when did all the pressure groups we see on TV disappear?
>Give us a break? ANY GROUP? Oh what magical powers this compulsory
>voting does bestow upon us. 1) without it we'd be EXACTLY like America
>2) Suddenly our govt takles care of every group.

Every group that can be clearly delineated and would tend to
vote as a group and is large enough to make a difference to
the outcome, it certainly takes care of pensioners a
whole lot more than the US. And I never claimed you
wouldn't get lobby or pressure groups, just that they would
have far less power and influence which is true. And I
really wish you would stop putting words in my mouth, I
never said exactly, obviously we both have a cultural
history. However, you have conveniently avoided the link
between money and elections which although it exists here is
significantly stronger in countries where voting is
optional and electoral systems disproportionate.

>Only one question? When did all of this take effect - must have been sleeping?
Again you are trying to discredit my arguments by blowing
them up from being 90% is much better than 50% (which is my
argument) to 100% is much better than 50% and then saying
100% is impossible so I must be wrong. I believe voting was
made compulsory in the 1920s I could be wrong on this one.
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory voting (Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?)
Organization: Monash University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:19:26 GMT

In article <1das1rINNs54@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU> jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier) writes:
>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov4.150018.164987@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>
>>>many areas where we as citizens have responsibilities
>>>commensurate with our rights. I.e. we have  a right to a
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This keep cropping up. We've got a right
(you cut out the remainder which went somthing like...
    to abstain with dignity.
>>so therefore we'd better invent a responsibility. A person's
>>responsibility is to make sure that they vote only when they
>>have good reason to vote for a particular party. Believe it
>>or not - there are people out there who FOR GOOD REASON cannot
>>choose a party that is clearly in their interests. Those reasons
>
>This argument is a non-starter. It is quite possible to spoil
>your ballot, if you don't want to vote for anyone running. 
Ask the electoral office if its legal to not vote. While you'll
obviously get away with it it is NOT legal according to them.
Why should I have to resort to deception - just to satisfy
your demands and at the same time preserve a basic right?
>
>Perhaps there should be a "none of the above" category.
No perhaps about it. If you compell people to attend then you
should provide a sanctioned method of abstaining.
>
>But your argument sucks.
I think this about your entire attitude mate. 
d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Australia's Debt
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:31:29 GMT

in article <1992Nov9.060350.779@cs.su.oz.au>, yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) says:
> They could instruct the Reserve Bank to stop supporting it, the market level
> would be below the current setting. (although they make quite a deal of
> money out of this ... and I guess the govt needs the revenue).

Yes, the Reserve Bank made a very handsome profit last financial year - I
think largely due to its foreign exchange ventures.  It smartly bought up the
$A when everyone else was dumping it... only to make a killing when market
jitters were found to be baseless and the $A rose again!

-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
Network Access |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | pending new
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby)
Subject: Re: ALP in the Lead 
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Distribution: aus
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:21:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.112832.165060@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>
>If a federal election for the House of Reps were held
>today which one of the following would your vote for?
>If uncommitted, which party do you lean to?
>
>			ALP	Lib/Nat	ADem
>Oct 23-25 92		37	49	6
>Nov 6-8		45	41	5

Yes, but the reason PK didn't announce an election on the same day
is to do with how that support is distributed. The ALP has quite
a few marginal seats in WA and SA; more than enough to lose the
election on state issues only. There needs to be a good sized swing
to the ALP in NSW and particularly in Victoria (hmmm?) to get them
back into government. The present government has a majority of 6, that
means they can't afford a net loss of more than 2 seats. Keating has
clearly decided that the Victorians haven't had enough experience with
the Liberals yet!
-- 
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: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:00:13 GMT

brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:

>	Under the preferential system we have, effectively you get not
>just one vote, but as many more votes it takes to get the candidate which
>is most likely to represent your views (_but_ not necessarily your first
>choice) elected.  Therefore, your vote is not counted just once (as David
>like to maintain) but as often as is necessary to gain a result.

In the above, "most likely to represent" (line 3) should be
"least likely not to represent".

Geoff Miller (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander)
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:48:49 GMT

In article <721401662.AA08737@csource.oz.au> Joe.Slater@f351.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Joe Slater) writes:
>
>MDA> I'm surprised that this is so, given that there were plenty of
>MDA> people screaming about it all prior to the election.  This phenomenon
>MDA> gives credence to those who claim that the electorateis incapable of
>MDA> making a rational decision, and voted for a change - any
>MDA> change,without paying due regard to what that change might entail.
>
>Of course, it could be that they rationally considered the alternative, and
>decided that the Liberals were better than Labor. Complaining about it at this
>stage is irrelevant; I am sure that if there were an election held tomorrow,
>Jeff Kennett would still get a majority. A much smaller one, perhaps, but still
>a majority. The true horror of the Labor years is still coming to light.
>
I wouldn't put any money on it.  And I think the odds against Kennett being
elected will increase as time goes by, and people see the full effects of
his master plan.

I'm surprised that you haven't indicated any concern about his commitment
to democracy, given the speed with which he's intent on rushing legislation
through parliament, his reluctance to share his ideas even with his own
Cabinet colleagues, his abolition of the Law Reform Commission, and his
eagerness to legislate away workers rights - rights upheld as an international
standard and ratified by the IL

What worries me is the rate of backtracking he's doing.  I don't like it when
all the signs indicate that we're dealing with a spoit brat who stamps his
feet to get his way, and then has to modify his views, post trantrum.  Surely
he had long enough as Premier-in-waiting to give more thought to some of his
ideas?  Apparently not.

Dey.

PS You do show up in all sorts of places, don't you Mr Slater?
>
> * Origin: What horrors wait for me in this, the Phantom's Opera? (3:632/351)


Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:57:37 GMT

In article <brian.721022231@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>	As I said in another message David, you do have the right to abstain.
>However you DO NOT have the right NOT to attend a polling booth.  When are
>you going to see the subtle difference? 
I see the difference. The electoral office doesn't (as far as their printed
material goes.)
>
>>>	David, the only person who is seeing conspiracies is yourself.
>>Funny - I thought you were the one that suggested that making
>>voting non-compulsory and/or allowing non-compulsory registration
>>makes us open to such exploitation. 
>
>	Really?  Where did I make such a statement?  Unless you can produce 
>such a statement from me I'd recommend that you apologise.  I do believe that you
>have, in your zealous rush to attack all and sundry who have offered an
>alternative opinion to your own, you have mixed me up with someone else. 
>
>>					Must have been dreaming.
>>Damn, some bastards are inserting conspiracy theories into your
>>writings - y'now suggesting we've got all sorts of people
>>waiting in the wings to swoop just in case we ever make voting
>>optional.
>
>	Oh, please do grow up David.  First insults, now delusions of 
>paranioa.  I'd recommend you stop and read what people are saying.
OK so you tell me why you mentioned obstacles being put in the way
of people voting in the US if you weren't trying to suggest the same
was going to happen here? If you weren't suggesting the possibility
of a conspiracy then why did you mention it?
d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander)
Subject: Re: ALP in the Lead 
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:40:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.112832.165060@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>
>If a federal election for the House of Reps were held today
>which one of the following would your vote for? If
>uncommitted, which party do you lean to?
>
>		ALP	Lib/Nat	ADem
>Oct 23-25 92	37	49	6
>Nov 6-8		45	41	5
>
>This was in the australian front page.
>

Although it is doubtful that Jeff Kennett is good for much, I think he
deserves the credit for this one. 

Dey.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: We got the government the power hungry unions deserved
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:40:12 GMT

I finally got around to reading John Cain's article in The Age on the 16/10/92
about Metplan and the failure to achieve any public transport reform from the
end of 1989.

Basically his government expected to have to negotiate with the unions
(principally the Australian Railways Union and the Trades Hall Council) but
they would not negotiate on anything that reduced their membership.  They
wanted to maintain their (Left faction) influence on the Labour party.

Well we know what happened after that, and it destroyed any reforming interest
that the government had.  After that, the government became non-reformist and
populist.  In this condition costs are not reduced by reform.

It's a pity no-one told the ARU and the THC at the time that they can either
have reform under a Labour government (minimal social dislocation, voluntary
retrenchments) or reform under a Liberal government (involuntary
retrenchments).  There is no other alternative.

So the ARU and THC showed that they needed a Liberal government.

Chris O'Neill
Telecom Research
From: pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander)
Subject: Re: For david and others
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:18:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.114655.165018@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>Contrary to what you may believe, I am in fact a swinging
>voter.
>
Well, let's hope for your sake that you use condoms.

Dey.
From: pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:23:54 GMT

In article <6709@otc.otca.oz> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
>> [re Brian's comment of obstacles to register to vote in the US]
>
>I've just learnt (from all the US election coverage) that you *cannot*
>register to vote in the US by mail - in fact George Bush *vetoed* a petition
>that would have changed the law in this respect.
>
>Very interesting.

And very sad.  So much for the commitment of so-called democracies to
real democracy.  The empty rhetoric is something we in Victoria are
bracing ourselves for.

Dey.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Australia's Debt
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:16:25 GMT

In article <6715@otc.otca.oz> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
>in article <1992Nov9.060350.779@cs.su.oz.au>, yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
says:
>> They could instruct the Reserve Bank to stop supporting it, the market level
>> would be below the current setting. (although they make quite a deal of
>> money out of this ... and I guess the govt needs the revenue).
>
>Yes, the Reserve Bank made a very handsome profit last financial year - I
>think largely due to its foreign exchange ventures.  It smartly bought up the
>$A when everyone else was dumping it... only to make a killing when market
>jitters were found to be baseless and the $A rose again!

Yes, it's curious that the Reserve Bank's main puropse in this area is to
stabilize the currency.  This purpose not only costs nothing, it actually makes
a profit.  You CAN get something for nothing (and even a profit)!

Chris O'Neill
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Vic Ministers Get $20,000 pay rise.
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:17:15 CST
 <1992Nov2.030323.4997@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> 
 <1992Nov2.061237.10509@trl.oz.au> <1992Nov2.215018.10125@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <1992Nov4.010133.19002@trl.oz.au>

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

>As I explained above, FID is neutral with respect to the amount taxed.
Not is SA, where it is very regressive (almost exponentially so).
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
From: jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory voting (Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?)
Date: 5 Nov 1992 21:12:11 +1100
Organization: University of Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au

suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.150018.164987@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:

>>many areas where we as citizens have responsibilities
>>commensurate with our rights. I.e. we have  a right to a
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This keep cropping up. We've got a right
>so therefore we'd better invent a responsibility. A person's
>responsibility is to make sure that they vote only when they
>have good reason to vote for a particular party. Believe it
>or not - there are people out there who FOR GOOD REASON cannot
>choose a party that is clearly in their interests. Those reasons

This argument is a non-starter. It is quite possible to spoil
your ballot, if you don't want to vote for anyone running. 

Perhaps there should be a "none of the above" category.

But your argument sucks.
-- 
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: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:22:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.104806.165040@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>You have still failed to address why you should be allowed
>to devalue someone elses vote by not turning up. A few
>percent could and would make the difference between the 2
>biggest political parties next election. Such a distorted
>result would be bad for the country.
Quite frankly your theory of the value of a vote is stupid.
Using your theory, everyone's vote, except those that voted for
the winner in a particular seat/election, turns out to be wasted.
I have heard others voice similar - "what's the point in voting
Labor in Kooyong" etc. I am sorry but
there is no polite way of putting - such attitudes are plain stupid.
Now what you appear to be saying is that I should vote for
someone (EVEN AT RANDOM) rather than no-one so that everyone
is comforted by the fact that they may just get
the numbers to win. 
A vote is a vote is a vote.. and only counts
once (no more no less). Whatever I do with my vote (including withholding
it) it makes no difference to the value of your vote. What on earth are you
doing PERPETUATING these MYTHS.
If 5% vote for party X and 95% vote for party Y
then the 5% votes are not wasted or devalued. The same holds
if 5% vote for party X, 25% for party Y and 70% is informal/abstain.
It makes no difference whether compulsory voting coerces the 75% to
go for party Y (or even to split), 5% have still registered their
displeasure with party Y.
d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:38:54 GMT

> [re Brian's comment of obstacles to register to vote in the US]

I've just learnt (from all the US election coverage) that you *cannot*
register to vote in the US by mail - in fact George Bush *vetoed* a petition
that would have changed the law in this respect.

Very interesting.

-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
Network Access |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | pending new
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Vic Ministers Get $20,000 pay rise.
Organization: Monash University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:58:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.122025.165044@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>
>>                    Poor who rent       Poor who buy           Rich
>>Labor tax (petrol)   $33 per year (ave)   (33 year average)  (33 per year ave)
>>     (Pyramid only)    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>                         Per Driving PERSON NOT household.
>
>>Liberal             Virtually zero        $100               $100
>
>True, but do you factor in that rich people often have more
>cars and the very rich ones that guzzle more gas?
Both you and Mr. O'Neil seem to have lost sight of the origins
of the debate. My argument does not depend upon showing either
form of taxation is fair/unfair - nor in even establishing
the relative fairness of each with any precision. 
I was objecting to Mr. O'Neill's assertion that the $100 tax
"was *ONLY* fair to the rich" (my emphasis).
What he seems unwilling to acknowledge is that it's not HUGELY
different to the Kirner petrol tax. Just which is fairer in
an exact anylysis depends upon whether you are arguing average case,
worse case, etc. Regardless, it is patently clear that a huge
number of people in the left hand category (rent but drive)
will pay virutally nil of the $100 and will pay some significant
amount in petrol tax. So clearly, the Liberal tax is fair to these people.
Granted it is grossly unfair to those in the middle (but so too is
the petrol tax IMHO).
>Personally, the advantage of the petrol tax is that it is to
>a limited extent discressionary. People can drive less, buy
>more feul efficient cars (assuming you can afford to at all)
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and that's the crux. It's much cheaper to buy and run an old
gas guzzler than to maintain a mortgage. Most poor people I have
seen (that drive) have a poorly maintained old car (often a large
Holden/Ford/Chrysler) not a modern well-tuned car.
I now several households (students, relatively poor people with
teenage drivers at home) that have two and more cars per household.
These people (renters) by any stretch of the imagination, are worse
off under a 3c a litre petrol tax then they are by a one
off $100 per household (registered owner)
 tax that most likely can't be passed on easily. 
If you indulge your imagination
enough to allow for a huge improvement in rental vacancy rates and totally
100% shylock landlords, then even then, they aren't hugely worse
off than facing the 3c a litre petrol tax. Both taxes are unfair to
the poor (generally) and fair to the rich (generally).
> and less of them.
>
>I actually don't think there is a lot of difference between
>labor and liberal. We have been told that they will both
Ahmen. That's exactly the point I wanted Mr. O'Neill to
swallow his pride to agree upon.
d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454