Australian Political & Infrastructure Discussion Thread

[Australian rePublic]

Agree or Disagree-

The ALP is the CCP's little lapdog

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Sydney Tuesday forecast is 36°C and Windy.
Imo, people should reconsider barbeques.

[Australian rePublic]

If I ran a political party, here would be my platform:

Constutional Amendments[/hr]

I'd hold referenda to make the following constitutional ammendements. I'd also explain my reasoning behind it

-Members of Parliament cannot serve as cabinet members (and I don't know whether I would extend that to shadow cabinet members)- this is two reasons. Firstly, it's unfair for the constitutes of MPs who have to serve as cabinet members, it's unfair for constitutes of non-cabinet member seats to not be represented by a non-cabinet, and cabinet members should be focused full time on their role, rather than serving local needs

-No party (including parties of the same coalition) nor individual can serve as the MP of a single seat for more than four consecutive terms. This applies federally and at state/territory level. This is to ensure that safe seats aren't neglected. The MP in question can move to a different seat and represent his/her new seat after the fourth consecutive term, but cannot represent the same seat. The same MP/party can serve a fifth or subsequent term, as long in the same seat, as long as there is a gap of one term after every fourth term

-I'd set up some system similar to the USA's primaries where the people, rather than the party, get to choose their leader

Though, to be fair, whilst this would work for parties, I'dn't a clue as to how any of this would work for independent MPs. Smaller parties might also get a pass for the ability to select their leaders if their leaders are the face of the party (e.g. Clive Palmer), but there strict rules about tjose kinds of parties

-A sunset clause, where all laws, state or federal, must be reviewed every 5 years at state/territory and federal level. The review will include askimg questions such as what's the impact of the law, is it meeting its intended goal, and what are the unintended consequences, and how does it impact people who don't intend to cause harm. This is to prevent Australia from remaining an over-regulated nanny state, and doesn't include emergency laws, such as those passed regarding war, terrorism, natural disaster or pandemics

-If an individual or organisation regardless of scale, shall contact the state/territory or federal government regarding a matter, and the states says that's it's not the fed’s problem and the fed's say that's it’s the state's problem, or if multiple organisations part of the same level of government pass the buck to eachother, there shall be an indipendant arbiter to determine whose responsibility it is. Any member of the general public, or any representative of any organisation (regardless of the organisation's scale) is free to contact the arbiter about any issue, and the arbiter has an oblogation to solve any reasonable issue

Moving on:

[b]Policy

-I was fucked over by Google. I've had numerous rants about this on NS and would probably dig them up if you request me to through telegram. Part of this is because of the power disparity between Australia and Google, as Australia is a tiny country which large multinationals can ignore. To ensure that nobody else is fucked by multinationals, I would set an international ACCC style comittee, rather than WTO style committee, where small and/or poor countries can get together to ensure that we can work as a block and not be screwed over by multinational corporations (kind of like how members of tiny European countries can work together as a block through the EU) To ensure that the comittee isn't overtaken by powerful countries or multinational organisations (such as the EU), there would be very strict entry criteria

-Regular meetings between Aboriginal communities, non-Aboriginal communities, local governments and police to help with reconciliation and closing the gap

-Regular meetings with business representatives and workers' unions to come up with compromised policies to help both parties

-Regular meetings with small businesses and large companies to promote competition without hurting big business

-An entire bipartisan committee who’s job it is to report to national cabinet with the findings of these meetings

-A federal driving legislation so that driving laws are consistant nationwide

Infrastructure

I wpuld build a lot of infrastructure and my flagship project would be called “Snowy Australia". This would constitute its own individual post

 

[Lura]

About Oz day,
We should remove the Union Jack out of our national flag.
We're an independent country. We shouldn't have a flag of an other country in our own flag?

I don't like the Australian flag because it feels more like the flag of a colony than one of an independent nation. It's also nearly identical to New Zealand's flag and when I read about things like Ottawa being decked out in New Zealand flags to welcome Bob Hawke to Canada during a visit it hurts a little bit.

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

Agree or Disagree-

The ALP is the CCP's little lapdog

Not sure what to say on that one.

Again, you might be right in saying that our resources are shipped to China either way, weather we have Albo or ScoMo, but it's also shipped to Japan.

Like the gas in the Timor Sea. East Timor was bugged by ASIS during the 2004 negotiations, and then nine years later Witness K's in court for blowing the whistle on the deal. They didn't allegedly reveal the location of a US military base like Assange might have, so what gives?

All while Timorese kids die of easily-treatable diseases, Woodside and Conoco-Phillips get rich off exporting our/their cheap gas for higher profit, Witness J/K and their lawyer get shafted in a secret court, etc.

But to answer the question, the two seem very friendly, but I wouldn't say the ALP's the CCP's lapdog. If China said, 'help us construct a ray gun to turn you all into cleaning mops', I can't imagine Albo saying yes.

[Albrenia]

Agree or Disagree-

The ALP is the CCP's little lapdog

No, but they are too friendly towards them. They're not lapdogs to my knowledge though.

Oh, and Happy Australia Day mates.

[Australian rePublic]

Here's the thread I promised you, sorry it took so long:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=497531

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

If I ran a political party, here would be my platform:

[b]Constutional Amendments[/hr]

I'd hold referenda to make the following constitutional ammendements. I'd also explain my reasoning behind it

-Members of Parliament cannot serve as cabinet members (and I don't know whether I would extend that to shadow cabinet members)- this is two reasons. Firstly, it's unfair for the constitutes of MPs who have to serve as cabinet members, it's unfair for constitutes of non-cabinet member seats to not be represented by a non-cabinet, and cabinet members should be focused full time on their role, rather than serving local needs

-No party (including parties of the same coalition) nor individual can serve as the MP of a single seat for more than four consecutive terms. This applies federally and at state/territory level. This is to ensure that safe seats aren't neglected. The MP in question can move to a different seat and represent his/her new seat after the fourth consecutive term, but cannot represent the same seat. The same MP/party can serve a fifth or subsequent term, as long in the same seat, as long as there is a gap of one term after every fourth term

-I'd set up some system similar to the USA's primaries where the people, rather than the party, get to choose their leader

Though, to be fair, whilst this would work for parties, I'dn't a clue as to how any of this would work for independent MPs. Smaller parties might also get a pass for the ability to select their leaders if their leaders are the face of the party (e.g. Clive Palmer), but there strict rules about tjose kinds of parties

-A sunset clause, where all laws, state or federal, must be reviewed every 5 years at state/territory and federal level. The review will include askimg questions such as what's the impact of the law, is it meeting its intended goal, and what are the unintended consequences, and how does it impact people who don't intend to cause harm. This is to prevent Australia from remaining an over-regulated nanny state, and doesn't include emergency laws, such as those passed regarding war, terrorism, natural disaster or pandemics

-If an individual or organisation regardless of scale, shall contact the state/territory or federal government regarding a matter, and the states says that's it's not the fed’s problem and the fed's say that's it’s the state's problem, or if multiple organisations part of the same level of government pass the buck to eachother, there shall be an indipendant arbiter to determine whose responsibility it is. Any member of the general public, or any representative of any organisation (regardless of the organisation's scale) is free to contact the arbiter about any issue, and the arbiter has an oblogation to solve any reasonable issue

 

Absolutely terrible. Stinks of America, and not just that but all the worst parts. No wait, you could have included a President with strong powers, that would have been worse.

Cabinet: either you expect Cabinet to be all Senators, which is bad because most people vote above the line and don't specifically choose Senators. Or a Cabinet of appointed persons whether or not they have political experience, or are electable. Furthermore the vote of members tends to go UP when then reach Cabinet, and if voters don't mind why should you? No.

Term limits: these would not eliminate safe seats, which are formed primarily by voters and their party preference, and only a bit by voter approval of the sitting member. Four terms is 12 to 16 years, which isn't terrible, but still I don't see the point. Limits on the Party which can take the seat is a very bad idea, you need to think that through. Not really, on Term Limits.

Primaries: Utterly un-necessary, and have you noticed a certain lack of quality in the US primary winners? Party members with the commitment to attend local meetings are far more trustworthy judges of who represents their interests, the party interest, and the intersection of those. It wouldn't work any better in Australia, with our tradition of hating both parties: a good part of each party's primary vote would actually be for the worst and least winning candidate instead of the one most likely to win while also being passable on policy. No.

Sunset clause: OK, since you haven't mentioned it being enforced. Requiring every bill to pass House and Senate again, after 5 years, would be absolutely disastrous. "Relitigating" ring a bell? OK as an enquiry thing, Hard No if legislation has to be renewed with a vote.

State/Federal arbiter. Well I don't believe this is a real problem. Most likely the complaint is badly worded, doesn't cite the relevant legislation, or is a problem with State AND Federal government. For instance a hospital is probably Federal, but its carpark State (even local), so if you have some safety concerns about the car-park, don't even mention the hospital. Give the street address. Also, email is as good as in-writing, but a phone complaint has to pass the hurdle of getting them write anything at all down. If they don't ask for your name then pause as they enter it, you're just wasting your breath.

If you really want something from government, you have to set a lawyer on them. It's my experience that legal aid lawyers (probably pro-bono lawyers too) are really averse to troubling the government. Maybe because they tend to be junior and don't want to make enemies in their own profession. Maybe because lawyers for the government have a lot of practice and they're hard to get past. Or maybe judges and juries are biased towards the government. In any case, MUCH more free legal services are necessary, and perhaps as you say an arbiter, or lawyers set aside specifically to investigate and get answers from government.

An obligation to resolve the matter implies the arbiter bringing a case against government where necessary, which could get quite expensive for basically trivial matters where a government official doesn't want to admit they got it wrong the first time. But OK, I'm never the one to say no to more Nanny State!

The Federal/State/Council runaround really bugs me too, it's mostly laziness and something should be done. A non-binding review of legislation after 5 years, would be a good tradition. All your other ideas get my Nay.

[Australian rePublic]

If I ran a political party, here would be my platform:

[b]Constutional Amendments[/hr]

I'd hold referenda to make the following constitutional ammendements. I'd also explain my reasoning behind it

-Members of Parliament cannot serve as cabinet members (and I don't know whether I would extend that to shadow cabinet members)- this is two reasons. Firstly, it's unfair for the constitutes of MPs who have to serve as cabinet members, it's unfair for constitutes of non-cabinet member seats to not be represented by a non-cabinet, and cabinet members should be focused full time on their role, rather than serving local needs

-No party (including parties of the same coalition) nor individual can serve as the MP of a single seat for more than four consecutive terms. This applies federally and at state/territory level. This is to ensure that safe seats aren't neglected. The MP in question can move to a different seat and represent his/her new seat after the fourth consecutive term, but cannot represent the same seat. The same MP/party can serve a fifth or subsequent term, as long in the same seat, as long as there is a gap of one term after every fourth term

-I'd set up some system similar to the USA's primaries where the people, rather than the party, get to choose their leader

Though, to be fair, whilst this would work for parties, I'dn't a clue as to how any of this would work for independent MPs. Smaller parties might also get a pass for the ability to select their leaders if their leaders are the face of the party (e.g. Clive Palmer), but there strict rules about tjose kinds of parties

-A sunset clause, where all laws, state or federal, must be reviewed every 5 years at state/territory and federal level. The review will include askimg questions such as what's the impact of the law, is it meeting its intended goal, and what are the unintended consequences, and how does it impact people who don't intend to cause harm. This is to prevent Australia from remaining an over-regulated nanny state, and doesn't include emergency laws, such as those passed regarding war, terrorism, natural disaster or pandemics

-If an individual or organisation regardless of scale, shall contact the state/territory or federal government regarding a matter, and the states says that's it's not the fed’s problem and the fed's say that's it’s the state's problem, or if multiple organisations part of the same level of government pass the buck to eachother, there shall be an indipendant arbiter to determine whose responsibility it is. Any member of the general public, or any representative of any organisation (regardless of the organisation's scale) is free to contact the arbiter about any issue, and the arbiter has an oblogation to solve any reasonable issue

 

Absolutely terrible. Stinks of America, and not just that but all the worst parts. No wait, you could have included a President with strong powers, that would have been worse.

Cabinet: either you expect Cabinet to be all Senators, which is bad because most people vote above the line and don't specifically choose Senators. Or a Cabinet of appointed persons whether or not they have political experience, or are electable. Furthermore the vote of members tends to go UP when then reach Cabinet, and if voters don't mind why should you? No.

You'd still have the same people. Let's say that Scomo is the MP for Cook. Fine, he's the MP for Cook running for prime minister. As soon as he becomes prime minister, he loses his seat. All cabinet members would be former MPs who lost their seat when promoted, in order to qualify, you have to first be an MP. Or if that doesn't work, we could work out a different system

Term limits: these would not eliminate safe seats, which are formed primarily by voters and their party preference, and only a bit by voter approval of the sitting member. Four terms is 12 to 16 years, which isn't terrible, but still I don't see the point. Limits on the Party which can take the seat is a very bad idea, you need to think that through. Not really, on Term Limits.

Fair enough

Primaries: Utterly un-necessary, and have you noticed a certain lack of quality in the US primary winners? Party members with the commitment to attend local meetings are far more trustworthy judges of who represents their interests, the party interest, and the intersection of those. It wouldn't work any better in Australia, with our tradition of hating both parties: a good part of each party's primary vote would actually be for the worst and least winning candidate instead of the one most likely to win while also being passable on policy. No.

Sunset clause: OK, since you haven't mentioned it being enforced. Requiring every bill to pass House and Senate again, after 5 years, would be absolutely disastrous. "Relitigating" ring a bell? OK as an enquiry thing, Hard No if legislation has to be renewed with a vote.

Why would it be required to pass through both houses?

State/Federal arbiter. Well I don't believe this is a real problem. Most likely the complaint is badly worded, doesn't cite the relevant legislation, or is a problem with State AND Federal government. For instance a hospital is probably Federal, but its carpark State (even local), so if you have some safety concerns about the car-park, don't even mention the hospital. Give the street address. Also, email is as good as in-writing, but a phone complaint has to pass the hurdle of getting them write anything at all down. If they don't ask for your name then pause as they enter it, you're just wasting your breath.

People get into endless cycles. Let's say that Sydney Water had a leaking pipe which caused a pot hole. You want the pot hole fixed. Sydney Water would say that it's the local council's problem, as the local roads are in their jurisdiction. The council would say that it's Sydney Water's problem as their pipes caused the pot hole. You get stuck in an endless cycle of pass the buck. Bad example aside, this shit actually happens in real life. Enter the arbiter

If you really want something from government, you have to set a lawyer on them. It's my experience that legal aid lawyers (probably pro-bono lawyers too) are really averse to troubling the government. Maybe because they tend to be junior and don't want to make enemies in their own profession. Maybe because lawyers for the government have a lot of practice and they're hard to get past. Or maybe judges and juries are biased towards the government. In any case, MUCH more free legal services are necessary, and perhaps as you say an arbiter, or lawyers set aside specifically to investigate and get answers from government.

An obligation to resolve the matter implies the arbiter bringing a case against government where necessary, which could get quite expensive for basically trivial matters where a government official doesn't want to admit they got it wrong the first time. But OK, I'm never the one to say no to more Nanny State!

See, this is where my proposal would eliminate the need for lawyers in the aforementioned pot hole example. The arbiter would say to Sydney "you fix the road" and end the cycle

The Federal/State/Council runaround really bugs me too, it's mostly laziness and something should be done. A non-binding review of legislation after 5 years, would be a good tradition. All your other ideas get my Nay.

Fair enough, I now see why they're bad ideas. Thanks for your feedback

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Absolutely terrible. Stinks of America, and not just that but all the worst parts. No wait, you could have included a President with strong powers, that would have been worse.

Cabinet: either you expect Cabinet to be all Senators, which is bad because most people vote above the line and don't specifically choose Senators. Or a Cabinet of appointed persons whether or not they have political experience, or are electable. Furthermore the vote of members tends to go UP when then reach Cabinet, and if voters don't mind why should you? No.

You'd still have the same people. Let's say that Scomo is the MP for Cook. Fine, he's the MP for Cook running for prime minister. As soon as he becomes prime minister, he loses his seat. All cabinet members would be former MPs who lost their seat when promoted, in order to qualify, you have to first be an MP. Or if that doesn't work, we could work out a different system

Term limits: these would not eliminate safe seats, which are formed primarily by voters and their party preference, and only a bit by voter approval of the sitting member. Four terms is 12 to 16 years, which isn't terrible, but still I don't see the point. Limits on the Party which can take the seat is a very bad idea, you need to think that through. Not really, on Term Limits.

Fair enough

Primaries: Utterly un-necessary, and have you noticed a certain lack of quality in the US primary winners? Party members with the commitment to attend local meetings are far more trustworthy judges of who represents their interests, the party interest, and the intersection of those. It wouldn't work any better in Australia, with our tradition of hating both parties: a good part of each party's primary vote would actually be for the worst and least winning candidate instead of the one most likely to win while also being passable on policy. No.

Sunset clause: OK, since you haven't mentioned it being enforced. Requiring every bill to pass House and Senate again, after 5 years, would be absolutely disastrous. "Relitigating" ring a bell? OK as an enquiry thing, Hard No if legislation has to be renewed with a vote.

Why would it be required to pass through both houses?

State/Federal arbiter. Well I don't believe this is a real problem. Most likely the complaint is badly worded, doesn't cite the relevant legislation, or is a problem with State AND Federal government. For instance a hospital is probably Federal, but its carpark State (even local), so if you have some safety concerns about the car-park, don't even mention the hospital. Give the street address. Also, email is as good as in-writing, but a phone complaint has to pass the hurdle of getting them write anything at all down. If they don't ask for your name then pause as they enter it, you're just wasting your breath.

People get into endless cycles. Let's say that Sydney Water had a leaking pipe which caused a pot hole. You want the pot hole fixed. Sydney Water would say that it's the local council's problem, as the local roads are in their jurisdiction. The council would say that it's Sydney Water's problem as their pipes caused the pot hole. You get stuck in an endless cycle of pass the buck. Bad example aside, this shit actually happens in real life. Enter the arbiter

If you really want something from government, you have to set a lawyer on them. It's my experience that legal aid lawyers (probably pro-bono lawyers too) are really averse to troubling the government. Maybe because they tend to be junior and don't want to make enemies in their own profession. Maybe because lawyers for the government have a lot of practice and they're hard to get past. Or maybe judges and juries are biased towards the government. In any case, MUCH more free legal services are necessary, and perhaps as you say an arbiter, or lawyers set aside specifically to investigate and get answers from government.

An obligation to resolve the matter implies the arbiter bringing a case against government where necessary, which could get quite expensive for basically trivial matters where a government official doesn't want to admit they got it wrong the first time. But OK, I'm never the one to say no to more Nanny State!

See, this is where my proposal would eliminate the need for lawyers in the aforementioned pot hole example. The arbiter would say to Sydney "you fix the road" and end the cycle

The Federal/State/Council runaround really bugs me too, it's mostly laziness and something should be done. A non-binding review of legislation after 5 years, would be a good tradition. All your other ideas get my Nay.

Fair enough, I now see why they're bad ideas. Thanks for your feedback

Cabinet is better than appointees, certainly. Having to be elected at least once is good. Still I think the PM would be biased towards MP's from safe seats, since there's going to be a round of by-elections. That whole "plotting from the back bench" thing would be eliminated if ex-Cabinet were right out of Parliament automatically. It's not perfect but I could go for this.

Sunset clause: to be enforceable, the legislation would need to be struck down if it failed the test. I imagined the most reliable way to be a time limit to endorse (by Parliament) and otherwise struck down automatically. I do see enforceable review as a bad idea though, and I don't mind a bipartisan commission to test the legislation and make recommendations.

Particularly with bipartisan bills (or half-bipartisan, eg Labor/LNP in the Senate) neither side wants to re-open debate on them. Compromise fatigue perhaps. Forcing them to at least debate bills from the term before would be good.

Arbiters. To get anything at all done, the arbiter would sometimes need to take legal action. Probably always deal with government in legal language. Maybe only sometimes, but they need to sometimes win a case in court, to have any influence. So long as you understand it will be expensive, with occasional peaks of Very Expensive (the arbiter loses a case) I still like the idea.

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

Pretty much our f-t-t-n internet

*bleeping*
https://www.dialupsound.com/

[Imperial isa]

Pretty much our f-t-t-n internet

*bleeping*
https://www.dialupsound.com/

Feels about right as i feel i lag more when playing in MP now on NBN to when i wasn't.

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/governments-google-facebook-law-little-more-than-a-backrub-for-news-and-nine/

I know this is a pretty divisive issue,
so I'm not going to voice my opinion on this one.

This article debates/explains the situation better than I ever could.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/governments-google-facebook-law-little-more-than-a-backrub-for-news-and-nine/

I know this is a pretty divisive issue,
so I'm not going to voice my opinion on this one.

Nor me. I wouldn't want to get in Big Media's bad books. Or Google's for that matter.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Pretty much our f-t-t-n internet

*bleeping*
https://www.dialupsound.com/

I'm on the Nice-Bad-Nothing and I think it's ... great, no problem, prefer not to say without legal advice. Isn't it FTTFN tho?

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/governments-google-facebook-law-little-more-than-a-backrub-for-news-and-nine/

I know this is a pretty divisive issue,
so I'm not going to voice my opinion on this one.

Nor me. I wouldn't want to get in Big Media's bad books. Or Google's for that matter.

Of course not.
But I do think the article is worth a read.

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

Also, funny story, I sent an email to an SMH journalist regarding a heap of questions I emailed through to another journo,
asking the simple question of, 'I put through questions to the herald on New Year's Eve, haven't gotten a reply yet'

She deftly said, 'We're not paid to answer the public's questions via email', I asked 'well, then how can I?', to which she replied, (sic) 'Depends on what questions they are but we're not here to answer the public's questions.'

'Depends'? I'm confused.
And when I asked her what she meant by 'depends what questions they are', I didn't get a reply.

I know journalists are busy and all,
but still, to quote my initial email, 'I think the public deserve to be able to put questions
to those whose job it is to ask questions'.

[Dazchan]

Pretty much our f-t-t-n internet

*bleeping*
https://www.dialupsound.com/

Feels about right as i feel i lag more when playing in MP now on NBN to when i wasn't.

My mum was lucky enough to get connected to NBN before the Liberals took government, so she’s on fibre to the home. It is amazing and shows what could have been.

On the other hand, my house got connected to HFC, which is the exact same cable internet service I already had, just through a different cable and $10 per month more expensive.

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

Not to sound like a greenie, but....

What's everyone's thoughts on the coal-seam-gas project in Narrabri?
Or just, idk, coal-seam gas in genral?

Should I create a discussion thread for this topic?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Not to sound like a greenie, but....

What's everyone's thoughts on the coal-seam-gas project in Narrabri?
Or just, idk, coal-seam gas in genral?

Should I create a discussion thread for this topic?

Pretty much against. Anywhere this lot can afford to drill, land is cheap, which means farmers rely on groundwater.

Waste water flows downhill, like any water, and then into a creek or river. Which ruins that water as well as lowering water tables for farms.

As long as it's miners vs farmers, the ones who were there first should get it.

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

And also,
uh, I found this on Jodi's Twitter.

You know Sydney probably better than anyone on the thread,
so what's it looking like down there in the chopper, Aus rePublic? (or any other Sydneysiders?)
(i'm only joking)
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/thousands-of-vehicles-flooding-sydney-roads-to-avoid-toll-20210127-p56x8d.html?btis

But all jokes aside,
from this,
it looks like WestConnex has fixed ONE problem - Parramatta Rd,
but created a whole lot of unrest and extra congestion in the process as many seem
to want to avoid the tollroad unless absolutely necessary.

NorthConnex too.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

And also,
uh, I found this on Jodi's Twitter.

You know Sydney probably better than anyone on the thread,
so what's it looking like down there in the chopper, Aus rePublic?
(i'm only joking)
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/thousands-of-vehicles-flooding-sydney-roads-to-avoid-toll-20210127-p56x8d.html?btis

Bill them for it.
How? Google.
NSW should pick a side.
I welcome our new Google overlords!

[Dazchan]

And also,
uh, I found this on Jodi's Twitter.

You know Sydney probably better than anyone on the thread,
so what's it looking like down there in the chopper, Aus rePublic? (or any other Sydneysiders?)
(i'm only joking)
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/thousands-of-vehicles-flooding-sydney-roads-to-avoid-toll-20210127-p56x8d.html?btis

But all jokes aside,
from this,
it looks like WestConnex has fixed ONE problem - Parramatta Rd,
but created a whole lot of unrest and extra congestion in the process as many seem
to want to avoid the tollroad unless absolutely necessary.

NorthConnex too.

Who would have thought that adding a toll to a road that people could previously use for free would cause people to stop using the road in question and find other routes?

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

Gee, Craig Kelly's gotten a ton of flak as of late.

Yea, there are bad faith Twitterers who just jump on the bandwagon,
but then there's those who are genuinely outraged at it and condemning his actions.

Suffice to say it, the Capitol has struck a nerve between many Australians and Scott Morrison's governmnt, especially surrounding the prominence far-right neo-Nazis had in the riots. Especially those like George Christensen (y'know, the whip dude) and Craig Kelly, who have both shown support of the far-right.

Antifa's horrible too, but they're pretty much the far-left version of QAnon.

I don't think it's time to talk about identity politics anymore, this isn't a matter of racism or sexism to me.

To me at least, what I've seen in 2021 has been a growing trend of ideology politics. Moreso than identity politics,
but still.

Again, I'm all for free speech.
I'm not Anita Sarkeesian, but then again,
what happened at Capitol in early Jan really is a testament
to how powerful the far right's influence has gotten.

Put my left-wing alignment aside,
and this still scares me,
knowing how far this has gone.


What do you guys think of the whole kerfuffle?

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

I also found it really scary that the Australia Day F'dation, who gave Rupert Murdoch an award this year, which many are unsettled by, was sponsored by fossil fuel companies like BHP, Rio Tinto and Woodside.

I also wonder (fossil fuels really deserves its own thread, idk) why the government keeps giving out subsidy after subsidy to these companies when they pay little to no tax.

Even I'd like, hell, maybe some money into the 'vroom-vroom' maker industry? Y'know, one of the biggest blows to our domestic industry?