HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: implication of GST
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:06:20 GMT

taso@munnari.OZ.AU (Taso Hatzi) writes:

>Brendan Jones (brendan@otc.otca.oz) wrote:
>: 
>: IMHO Hewson has adopted a very risky and ultimately politically naive set of
>: policies.  He knows that there is very little chance of a GST becoming law,
>:
>I would argue that the Opposition has made a monumentally stupid mistake
>in publishing any policy document whatsoever. Well nigh any reform will
>have its critics, so a package of reforms is bound to generate a lot
>of invective which the media will latch on to and amplify.

I don't know whether it is monumentally stupid, or uncharacteristically
honest. Fightback isn't just a GST, it is a fundamental change in the
way the economy will run, of an impact that hasn't been proposed since
WWII. I think that Hewson would have a lot better chance of winning the
election if he dropped the GST. However, *after* the election, assuming
the coalition wins, which is a big assumption, the picture changes a
lot.

If the coalition wins on the fightback platform, the Democrats will not
dare block it in the Senate, because Hewson could trumpet "mandate" "the
will of the people", etc, and call a double dissolusion. The Democrats
would be annihilated, because the ALP would be even more eager to get
them out of the Senate than the Libs.

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: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:10:59 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: werple public-access UNIX, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Original Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
 
>>(Incidentally, asset financing is exactly the same in all other states
>>of Australia.)
>
>Just not true. Have a look at the levels of public debt in Queensland.
>they are *much* lower than in Victoria. There are *lots* of other ways
>to finance public assets. Examples: state lotteries, contracting them
>out and allowing tolls to be levied (i.e. convert public debt into
>private debt), and even (gasp) taxes. Issuing bonds and other ways of
 
Doesn't Victoria also finance it's debt through petrol levies/excises,
lotteries. Perhaps Queensland is so well off becuase they receive a
disproportionate share of the Federal funds. How else could a state
with a low tax base have such wonderful highways?? Compare this to
NSW and Victoria's highways.
 
>Which is exactly what they should be doing! If the asset is readily
>salable, it should be sold because the marketplace can make more
>efficient use of it. If it can't be sold, then it isn't an asset. It's a
>*service*, which is what governments should be providing.
 
The trouble is J.Kirner and Company [filed for bakruptcy last week!]
were fire-selling assets. I hope the new government holds onto them long
enough or alternatively doesn't settle for an outrageous price just to
satisfy some short term debt.
 
>That's what got Victoria in so much trouble in the first place. The Cain
>government thought it would go into business in a big way, in
>competition with the private sector in many cases. Of course the public
>sector doesn't have to toe the line in the way the private sector does,
>and *of course* it going to be mismanaged.
 
Yes, the famous VEDC. And their moto: "We got it, you can have it, no
questions asked!".
 
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: farrell@coral.cs.jcu.edu.au (John Farrell)
Subject: Re: Private censorship, here now
Organization: James Cook University
Date:  7 Oct 92 07:36:43 GMT

In <1992Oct6.225721.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
>situation as herself. the reply was " only an ex Graylands nutcase in West-
>Lederville..." ( for non Perth readers, Graylands mental hospital is the main

>I have seen all the corespondence in this matter, and the signed statment
>of Jenny Roper, and can post copies if any one wants them.

  But what's the big deal?

Friendless
From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: implication of GST
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:44:01 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland

ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh) writes:

>The procedures for dispute resolution are a little more complicated
>than that. After holding a double dissolution, a Liberal government
>would either hold a majority in both houses or it wouldn't. If it
>held a majority, no problem. If it didn't, it would hold a joint
>sitting of Parliament -- both houses in one chamber. If the Liberal
>majority in the lower house was small enough the Government could
>still lose the bill.

Yes, but a majority that small in the reps would make government a
rather tenuous affair anyway.

>There is a subtlety here that no one has pointed out. To trigger a
>double dissolution, the Senate has to _reject_ the bill. The Democrats
>did not say they would _reject_ it; they said they would _delay_ it.
>By shunting the bill off to committees, they can delay it for ever,
>or at least until the next election.

The Senate's ability to delay things would be severely limited if the
whole thing were made part of the Budget bill, which it almost certainly
would be.

>If the Senate decides to block the GST bill, the resolution will not
>be quick.

If the Democrats decide they are going to block the bill, they will be
annihilated. 

cheers,

Mark
--
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: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
Subject: Re: implication of GST
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:13:15 GMT

taso@munnari.OZ.AU (Taso Hatzi) writes:
>I would argue that the Opposition has made a monumentally stupid mistake
>in publishing any policy document whatsoever. Well nigh any reform will
>have its critics, so a package of reforms is bound to generate a lot
>of invective which the media will latch on to and amplify.

The only way a Coalition government can have its policies implemented
would be to have double dissolution and win it.

If they do that, during the dissolution election campaign, they need
to be able to say: "We tried to do exactly what we said we were going
to do.  You the people elected us to do that.  The Senate is blocking
us.  So we've come back to you.  We didn't lie to you and we didn't
hide anything from you."

Your advice of not releasing a detailed set of policies would be
appropriate for an Opposition which does not really want to implement
its policies but are only interested in power.  I think it is a good
sign that we have a federal opposition which does seem interested in
implementing reforms (although of course they want power too).


--
	Daniel Lam
	Melbourne, Australia

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
From: adamt@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Australian military air show & arms
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:41:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:peg:996200275:000:1584
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!adamt    Oct 14 00:41:00 1992


Newsgroups: misc.activism, alt.activism, melb.general, aus.politics

Disarm the Skies             AEROSPACE '92

October 21-25, Avalon Airport, 30 kms from Melbourne, Australia

"The great lesson that everyone has learned out of the Gulf is 
 that we must control the international arms trade."
 - Senator Robert Ray, Australian Minister for Defence.

So what do we get...

- The largest space and aeronautic arms sale ever to be help
  in the Southern Hemisphere!

- An AIDEX on wings!

Aerospace '92 is a trade show of aeronautic equipment that is
70-80% military, although this will be reduced to 40% on the 
weekend, when it is open to the public.

In difficult economic times, military manufacturing is seen
as a potential growth industry for Australia.
Sales in the Asia-Pacific region are increasing at %10 per annum,
and some Australians want a piece of this cake.

Do you want Australia to be part of this murderous industry?

What can you do? 

    1. Publicise your views.
    2. Participate in the activites of the next two weeks.

Contact:

Friends of the Earth (FOE),        222 Brunswick st. Fitzroy, 
                                   phone: (03) 419 8700

Campaign Against Militarism (CAM), 124 Napier st, Fitzroy, 
                                   phone: (03) 419 5937

Campaign for Internation           5th Floor, 252 Swanston st, 
Cooperation & Disarmament (CICD)   Melbourne, phone: 663 3667

or email:                          adamt@peg.apc.org

or Pegasus/Earthnet/Peacenet/:     oz.military, cafe.melbourne,
   Econet/Greennet conferences     pn.abolition
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: schuller@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Wayne Schuller)
Subject: Re: Okay! Victorians didnt vote stupid again!(is that good?)
Keywords: man woman jeff joan love hate war peace and the gst!
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:42:48 GMT

pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander) writes:

>In article <9228121.9078@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> schuller@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Wayne Schuller) writes:

>>All you liberal haters can crap on all you like about how the gst and the 
>>liberals are going to stuff us up badly, but lets just wait and see, and 
>>finish this discussion in 4 years.. And we will see just how well the liberals
>>have done.... Thats is of course unless they close down Melb Uni and then I
>>wont have an account to read the news anywhere!.  

>Wayne, you appear to be confusing state with federal politics.  The Libs
>got elected in Victoria.  GST is a federal issue.

>Dey

Ah yes, i realise that, but surely the vic election is even just a remote
indication of what will happen in a federal election?.....
I believe the tide is turning......

schuller@mullauna.cs.mu.oz.au
From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Australia's "foreign" debt...
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:12:41 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland

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

>BTW, not only would the abolition of negative gearing remove
>a primary source of debt, it would also depress house prices
>which would have a secondary effect of people having to
>borrow less to get out of the rental trap.

I agree with you that negative gearing is a bad thing. It means that
people with money to invest are investing it in housing rather than
something productive. 

However,. I think you are being a bit too dismissive of the consequences
of the abolition of negative gearing. When the Hawke government tried
abolishing it back in 1983-4, chaos reigned. Builders went broke in
their droves, and rental accommodation became much more expensive and a lot
more difficult to find. There is no evidence to suggest that getting rid
of negative gearing would result in a long-term reduction in housing
prices, because it does nothing to reduce demand for housing while doing
a lot to reduce supply.

If the government were to abolish negative gearing, it would have to
introduce a massive public housing program in order to compensate all
the lower-income families who would no longer have their rent subsidised
by the taxman.

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: jcollier@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:24:32 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: University of Melbourne, Australia

In <3314@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU> cm@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Charles Meo) writes:

>One fact you might consider is that 65% of the external debt is in PRIVATE
>hands, and has nothing to do with the government. This is the fruit of another
>'binge'--the stupid takeovers of the eighties, and now we see bankruptcies 
>where they should be, with the scumbags who did all that stuff. 

That is a good point. One thing I like about Australia is that the
scumbags are being prosecuted (when the prosecuters can get their hands
on them). In the US and Canada, a lot of them just got off, and were
even able to keep the money. In Alberta, for example, farmers were
fuming when a friend of the premier (Conservative) had a multi-million
dollar debt excused (though it was pretty obvious that it was a bad
debt that was fraudulently represented as a good investment) when the
farmers were being shut down by the banks over $100,000 loans they
couldn't make good on because of falling revenue due to overproduction
and trade subsidies.

Actually, I think that given world circumstances, Australia has
come through things looking pretty good in comparison. There hasn't
been the huge amount of dropping into poverty that we see in the
US, for example. The signs of recession are much more obvious to the
casual obeserver in Southern California than they are here. I think the
fact that there has been a Labor Government federally has a lot to
do with how well Australia has weathered the storm so far. Mistakes
were made, granted, but they were in both ideological directions.

-- 
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: ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh)
Subject: Re: implication of GST
Organization: CSIRO, Division of Information Technology, Melbourne
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 03:49:38 GMT

In article <dyfl.719032395@munagin> dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam) writes:
>taso@munnari.OZ.AU (Taso Hatzi) writes:
>>I would argue that the Opposition has made a monumentally stupid mistake
>>in publishing any policy document whatsoever. Well nigh any reform will
>>have its critics, so a package of reforms is bound to generate a lot
>>of invective which the media will latch on to and amplify.
>
>The only way a Coalition government can have its policies implemented
>would be to have double dissolution and win it.

The procedures for dispute resolution are a little more complicated
than that. After holding a double dissolution, a Liberal government
would either hold a majority in both houses or it wouldn't. If it
held a majority, no problem. If it didn't, it would hold a joint
sitting of Parliament -- both houses in one chamber. If the Liberal
majority in the lower house was small enough the Government could
still lose the bill.

There is a subtlety here that no one has pointed out. To trigger a
double dissolution, the Senate has to _reject_ the bill. The Democrats
did not say they would _reject_ it; they said they would _delay_ it.
By shunting the bill off to committees, they can delay it for ever,
or at least until the next election.

Under these circumstances, the Government can take the matter before
the High Court and argue that the Senate has effectively rejected the
bill. 

The High Court would accept this argument, but only if the Senate
has had sufficient time to consider the bill. It is up to the
High Court to decide, in any given case, when this has occurred.

If the Senate decides to block the GST bill, the resolution will not
be quick.

andrew waugh
From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Australia's "foreign" debt...
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:53:39 GMT

In article <miw.719122361@cc.uq.oz.au> miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
writes:
>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>
>>BTW, not only would the abolition of negative gearing remove
>>a primary source of debt, it would also depress house prices
>>which would have a secondary effect of people having to
>>borrow less to get out of the rental trap.
>
>I agree with you that negative gearing is a bad thing. It means that
>people with money to invest are investing it in housing rather than
>something productive. 
>
>However,. I think you are being a bit too dismissive of the consequences
>of the abolition of negative gearing. When the Hawke government tried
>abolishing it back in 1983-4, chaos reigned. Builders went broke in
>their droves, and rental accommodation became much more expensive and a lot
>more difficult to find.

If the Government wanted to interfere in the market and subsidize rental
accommodation they could have used a rental subsidy which would have been far,
far cheaper than blanket negative gearing.  I mean, did the Government really
think it was worth letting Holmes a Court, Bond et al engage in billions of
dollars worth of negative gearing just so it could help some less well off
people find rental accommodation.

The point about builders going broke in their droves is interesting.  How much
cheap reantal accommodation do you know of that is brand new buildings?  Very
little in my experience.  The buildings that these builders would have built
was not cheap rental accommodation.  Perhaps more likely it was affice
buildings.  Again, what justification does the Government have for interfering
in this market.  Certainly not social welfare.

> There is no evidence to suggest that getting rid
>of negative gearing would result in a long-term reduction in housing
>prices, because it does nothing to reduce demand for housing while doing
>a lot to reduce supply.
>
>If the government were to abolish negative gearing, it would have to
>introduce a massive public housing program in order to compensate all
>the lower-income families who would no longer have their rent subsidised
>by the taxman.

So if it's that important, why isn't the rent subsidized directly.

>Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.edu.au

Chris O'Neill
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Reply to comments on the Free Speech Thread
Organization: Monash University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:54:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.084818.12232@newshost.anu.edu.au> apr110@rsphy7.anu.edu.au (Anthony Roberts) writes:
>The final point raised in critisisms of my original post was that
>publishers should be allowed to reject particular infromation without
>this violating principles of `free speech' because other publishers
>would take it up. In the perfect world with a
>perfect information market this may be a fair point. However we are far from
>a perfect market with 3 or 4 large publishing multinationals controlling
>the flow of information to a large number of people. What if _none_ of
>the publishers wish to publish? The case in point is a Rugby League
>magazine which may be the only one with a certain demographic audience.
>Once you dont have access to that group, which is the group so exposed
>to the Winfield advertising, your ability to get your view across is
>hindered.
And what gives you the right to demand that your view be trumpeted
at the expense of others (both financially, since space costs
and also because your use excludes others since any medium is finite)?
Stop bleating. Within the rules of defamation/inciting riots/false advertising
etc., I am free to pass on whatever message (and withold similarly) I deem fit
and the consumer is free to listen or not. I don't see why it should
be any different for Murdoch et al.
In principle, I'd
like to dictate to those multinationals what to print/broadcast too
but I'm damn sure you wouldn't like my tastes either.
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: chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby)
Subject: Re: implication of GST
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:04:39 GMT

In <6549@otc.otca.oz> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:

>You're all forgetting one VERY important thing in this debate.  Reality.
>
>All your arguments for and against GST may come to naught, because even if
>Dr. J is elected, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that he will control the Senate,
>and the Democrats have indicated that they will not support a GST, al least
>not one that taxes "the necessities of life" (whatever they are).

He can pass it by means of a double-dissolution and the following joint
sitting of parliament. He will threaten the Democrats with this option.
He still has to convince the people that they should vote for him a second
time, after they've had a taste of the medicine. Ideology will take a back
seat then, if not now. Such is reality as I see it.
-- 
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: gantony@metz.une.edu.au (George Antony)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:54:21 GMT
Reply-To: gantony@metz.une.edu.au
Distribution: aus
Originator: gantony@metz.une.edu.au

From article <6511@otc.otca.oz>, by brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones):
> 
> The fact is, regardless of who was in power in Australia over the past 10
> years, there is little that anyone could have done to have averted what is a
> global phenomenon.  We can only hope to minimise the impact.

Well, not quite.  If the government of the day had acted in a consistently 
counter-cyclical way (instead of amplifying the cyclical effects), the outset, 
depth and length of the recession could have been different.  It is worth 
noting that this recession was much worse in English-speaking developed 
countries than, e.g., in places such as France.  And yes, a more cautious 
deregulation of the financial system would have been desirable too.  Keeping 
the corporate cowboys from the trough (to mix metaphores) would have had a
positive effect on national debt and, hence, debt service and, hence, capital 
flows and, hence, the balance of payments.  

Which, of course, does not mean that if a Coalition government had been in
power they would have done anything of the sort, given their appalling track
record in economic management culminating in Fraser.

 -------------------------------------------------------------
 George Antony    (gantony@metz.une.edu.au)
 Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management
 University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351, Australia
 Fax: (+61-67) 711531     Phone: (+61-67) 733222 (GMT +10 hrs)
 -------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: Reply to comments on the Free Speech Thread
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:58:13 GMT

farrell@coral.cs.jcu.edu.au (John Farrell) writes:

>  I shall be suing you Mr Williams, as soon as I find an honest lawyer to
>represent me.

I admire you for your unlitigous nature!

(I mean to say, what honest lawyer would represent Friendless?) :-)

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