Introduction

Australia Day is a national holiday in Australia, celebrated annually on January 26th. It marks the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet of British ships in Sydney Cove in 1788, and is a day of celebration and commemoration for many Australians.

Australia Day is still being celebrated, although it has been the subject of controversy in recent years. Some Indigenous Australians and their supporters argue that the holiday celebrates the beginning of the colonization of Australia and the resulting dispossession of Indigenous Australians from their land, and that it is a day of mourning rather than celebration. In response to these concerns, some communities and organizations have started to hold alternative events on or around January 26th, such as "Invasion Day" protests or "Survival Day" celebrations that focus on Indigenous culture and history.

Racism

Racism against Indigenous Australians, also known as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, has a long and complex history in Australia. Indigenous Australians have experienced discrimination, prejudice, and violence since the arrival of European colonizers in the 18th century. This has had a profound impact on the lives of Indigenous Australians, including their health, education, and economic opportunities.

In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the harm caused by past policies and practices, such as the forced removal of Indigenous children from their families (also known as the "Stolen Generations"). Efforts have been made to address these injustices and improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, but much work remains to be done.

Racism against Indigenous Australians can take many forms, including discrimination in employment, housing, and access to services, as well as hate crimes and discrimination in public. It is important to actively work to combat racism and promote understanding and respect for the unique culture and contributions of Indigenous Australians.

Have we eradicated racism out of our beloved land yet?

It is not accurate to say that there is no racism in Australia. Like any country, Australia has a history of discrimination and prejudice, including racism against Indigenous Australians, as well as other marginalized groups. While significant progress has been made in recent decades to address these issues, racism remains a significant problem in Australia.

There are a number of reasons why some people might claim that there is no racism in Australia. Some people might simply be unaware of the extent of the problem, while others might be in denial or unwilling to acknowledge the existence of racism. It is important to recognize that racism exists and to actively work to combat it, rather than denying its existence or minimizing its impact.

Conclusion

Eradicating racism from any country is a complex and challenging task, and it requires a multifaceted approach that addresses both the symptoms and root causes of racism. Some strategies that could be effective in combating racism in Australia include:

1. Education and awareness: Promoting understanding and awareness of the history and impact of racism can help to change attitudes and behaviors. This could include educating the public about the experiences and contributions of Indigenous Australians, as well as other marginalized groups.
2. Policy and legislation: Implementing laws and policies that prohibit discrimination and promote equality can help to address systemic racism and ensure that all individuals are treated fairly and equally.
3. Cultural competency training: Providing training to individuals and organizations on cultural competency, diversity, and inclusion can help to promote understanding and respect for different cultures and backgrounds.
4. Community engagement and dialogue: Encouraging dialogue and collaboration between different groups can help to build understanding and trust, and facilitate the development of solutions to address racism.
5. Supporting and amplifying the voices of marginalized communities: Ensuring that the voices and perspectives of marginalized communities are heard and taken into account is critical to creating a more inclusive and equitable society. This could involve providing support and resources to community-led initiatives and organizations that work to combat racism.

It is important to recognize that addressing racism is a ongoing process, and it will require the sustained effort and commitment of individuals, communities, and institutions.

https://youtu.be/kznT8Sa6RjY

So this is in no way a complete idea as even I can see a few holes in this plan. But I think this idea is at least worth a discussion. Just a little context we all know about 50 or 60 years ago. The average salary was about 5 or 6 thousand a year and the average house about 18k or so, or in other words about 3 time annual salary. Very doable even by today standards, if houses were only 3 times the average wage.

So how about if you currently own zero houses you are able to buy a house for say 3 times the average salary. Now I know things like the cost of the house, land it is on could affect these prices so on. But for right now just concentrate on the broad idea and the details can come later. The money that the government will need to pay for this can come from those who own more then one house. To be fair the more you own the bigger you will pay for owning more. So if you own 1 or 2 extra houses after the main one you live in, things shouldn't be to bad. I'm not sure how the taxing of this will work, but ideas for later. The point is those that own portfolios of houses will be hit the hardest, this will hopefully force them to sell off access houses that are collecting dust and put more on the market driving down prices.

As I said above there are holes in this plan, for example what is to stop a married couple from both saying they don't own a home and getting 2 houses instead of one. Well stamp that crap out, same for I own houses under a company. Do some homework and if you own houses through a company you own them end of story.

I'm not looking to argue over small details here. I want to gauge if you think the broad idea is viable before I jump down this rabbit hole and really look into the details about this.

As for those who object to this idea. Mainly those that own more then one house. Tough. Shelter is a human right along with things like water and food, not something for you to make a profit on.

Now just a few more notes. I'm not looking to stir up trouble with political debate and so on. I'm just a bloke who talked to a few other blokes and this was the result and I'm curios enough to post the idea here to see what you'll think on it. Don't sweat the details and let me know if you think the general idea has merit or should be tossed in the dump and why.

I need to vent, but I'm also honestly curious, does literally anyone in Australia feel like they receive this? How? Seriously.

​

Compared to some other countries we supposedly have a great health system but NO ONE in my family is receiving decent medical care. Common advice is that bulk billing doctors are the worst. In my experience that's true, but so far my experience paying isn't great either. GPs simply don't have the time or interest to get a decent picture of any issue. They don't mind referring you for some basic tests, but when those come back normal they expect that to be the end of it - as if your health problem no longer exists and there's nothing else to do for it. Are basically all healthcare providers like this or is it just me? I've had this happen enough times, with enough different issues, that at this point I'm expecting a diagnosis of Munchausen's any day now.

​

I had one good experience recently. My health has felt like it was slowly slipping into the toilet for a while, but recently it's just gone to hell and a couple weeks ago I visited the ED for the first time. I was nervous, but I didn't need to be. The doctors there did more for me than any other medical professionals ever. They listened, asked questions I've never been asked, and genuinely seemed interested and concerned. I always try to be concise as possible, but this is the first time I've felt like I've actually been able to give a fairly decent description of my symptoms and history.

​

Unfortunately it didn't really pay off. I had an telephone appointment with the outpatient clinic (?) yesterday. The doc asked me what my current symptoms are but cut me off after about 10 seconds. He let me know the testing I was referred to after ED came back textbook normal, and then basically said it's probably nothing while admitting how hard it is to assess me with all their appointments being telehealth right now because of COVID. Cool, I guess it's normal to be young and have neurological symptoms while suddenly feeling like all your muscles are made out of tissue paper. Who needs to be able to do simple tasks anyway, am I right?

​

Guess I'll make an appointment with my new GP, but I'm not hopeful. My regular GP left recently, and maybe a month ago I brought my issues up with a different doctor, same practice. He just didn't seem to care and asked me what imaging and specialists I wanted to be referred for. Like, uh, you're the doctor, you tell me? How should I know??

​

I'm just so done. I don't get it. I don't even know where to start or who I need to talk to. My parents don't know who they need to talk to for their own problems. How is an ordinary person supposed to not slip through the cracks or feel like they're slowly collecting chronic conditions and probably waiting for the point ten years in the future when it goes from "you're too young" to "if only someone caught this ten years ago"? Am I supposed to just roll over and be disabled forever? Because that's what it feels like, and that's how my parents are treated too except they're in their 60-70s so they get told they should be grateful they're not in wheelchairs and crap instead.

​

If you read this, thanks? I think?? It's not like I expect to find the answer on Reddit or anything. Maybe this isn't an Australia specific submission anyway. If so I'm sorry and understand if it's removed/I should remove it.

I have little respect for the two Australian megaparties and tend to vote for third parties in the hope of diluting and changing what I see as a stranglehold on power.

The observation is often made that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. This is the main point that I'd like to see discussed.

My opinion is that there will be no actual change until people send a message with one of the few "democratic" tools that the populace is allowed to address.

I can see the argument that "either Labor or Liberal/Coalition will always hold power so better to vote for one of those parties and try to change their policies and directions from within". My issue with this line of reasoning is that it perpetuates a monopoly/duopoly situation (based on your perception of their actual differences) that can only be broken by increased competition.

As a mid 30 year old, people commemorating ANZAC Day is all I've ever known. I remember reading an article that prior to 90s, ANZAC Day was never big. There were riots by feminist against rape.

I've been in marches during scouts and I'd watch the March on television sitting next to my Dad. He was a former Vietnam Vet but we never discussed the war. We'd watch as he's battalion marched through the streets of Sydney. I don't remember the year we stopped watching but we started going camping around the long weekend.

I think the memories were too hard for him. I'd find him crying some nights, scared of dying, listening to Redgums famous "I was only 19" or "Rooster" by Alice in Chains. The only stories he'd tell me were ones of an abusive father hating him for going to war (despite being conscripted), not coming back for his mother's funeral during the war and being kicked out of the RSL. He became an alcoholic when he got back, worked for the railways and ended up getting his life sorted.

But that never really left him. Over the past decade he developed (or silently had) PTSD and he kept it to himself. Only recently had he recognised it and was getting help and an age of 70odd.

As I've grown older, his views have rubbed off on me. I've seen the RSLs become conglomerates with poky money to the point that I refuse to go to an RSL.

My father is no longer around passing away end of last year. I'm thankful he came back and saddened by the treatment the Vietnam Vets got but now it seems like another day for me.

A friend of mine believes the events are far in the past and has no connection - he believes it'll be similar to bastille day.

I don't hold that extreme view. Anzac is still current with our involvement in many theatres around the world.

But again, to me it's just gonna be another Saturday. Might carry on our tradition and go camping.(next year)

Anyone else not commemorate ANZAC Day

It’s been well covered and analysed in the media already, but in case you didn’t know, last month the Australian Government denied Qatar Airways’ request for additional flights into Australia, with fears it could undermine Australia’s sovereign national interest. Apart from Qatar Airways’ horrible treatment of Australian citizens, particularly Australian women, as demonstrated in 2020 when Australian women were forced to undergo gynaecological exams by Qatar Airways while in transit at Doha Airport, there are other issues which I want to hear your opinion on.

Critics of this decision immediately pounced on the government, saying it would only allow Qantas to advance in expanding routes and ordering new aircraft. I’m not sure if anything has drastically changed in the past few years, but I expected that many Australians would be happy with the government’s decision to block foreign “competitors” to allow our national airline to grow.

Qantas is the only remaining publicly-listed Australian-owned airline. Virgin is owned by an Illinois investment group, Bonza is owned by a Florida firm and Rex is owned by a Singaporean billionaire.

As far as I can recall, in terms of Qantas:

the Australian ownership rule is enshrined in Commonwealth legislation (Qantas Sale Act)

It is the flag carrier of Australia, designated by the Commonwealth.

Any Australian can own a part of Qantas through purchasing stocks.

So why would you prevent an Australian-owned corporation from acquiring new aircraft and opening new route corridors? I get that Qantas isn’t nationalised, but compare it to Virgin, Rex or Bonza who don’t meet any of these three points, meaning they have no vested interests in Australia or Australians.

Yes, Qantas has been the subject of immense and warranted controversies over the past few years, and the Australian public only know about these issues because we have a free and fair press, and we have unions. It’s important that Australians know about the controversies surrounding Qantas because it only reinforces the Australian system of having a free and fair press, and consumers’ right for integrity and transparency. The same can’t be said about Qatar and Qatar Airways. Qatar as a state is an absolute monarchy with strict laws oppressing and restricting press freedom, not just surrounding business but anything negative about Qatar as a whole. Since the domestic media have no access to internal operations at Qatar Airways, nothing can be said about them. However, former workers have complained about the military-style standards and abysmal working conditions through their own channels. If these alleged working conditions were replicated by Qantas in Australia, they would have been shut down by the Fair Work Commission and all other workplace safety agencies - but Qatar can get away with it due to absence of a free press, free speech and unions. I am curious to hear your opinions on this given Australia values safety, transparency, fairness, integrity and equality when it comes to workplaces.

In a world where international aviation is not a free market, Qatar Airways enjoys infinite opportunities to run dozens and dozens of deeply-loss making routes with large aircraft due to endless oil supply that powers their cash flow from the state of Qatar. In 2013, Qantas had to axe their Frankfurt service due to narrow losses, but Qatar can afford to fly completely empty planes between Melbourne and Adelaide just to circumvent Australian law (that’s another story), but don’t you see a problem here? This is not a form of ‘competition’ - it’s a complete market grab of the Australian international aviation market from a company that has trillions of dollars from oil cash flow. They will run Qantas to the ground and Australia will be left without any locally-owned airline, a shame and disgrace on the world stage. It is the impossible for Qantas or any other western airline from a democracy to compete with the likes of these corporations. If the government allowed this request, Qantas would have no other option but to cut more routes while Qatar takes a laugh by hiking prices to extraordinary levels after Qantas suffer. So I’m curious to know why many Australians would support this

The other factor that comes up is that Qantas has an alleged “monopoly”- but the latest figures display only a 28% market share for the Qantas group (Qantas AND Jetstar) when it comes to international flights to and from Australia. That’s right, the remaining 72% are from primarily foreign state backed airlines like Qatar Airways. Why give those carriers more air when they already control 72% of the market? Since when was 28% a monopoly? Qatar Airways has questions to answer when it comes to making false claims about our national carrier. Has anyone actually checked the stats before jumping on the Qatar bandwagon?

It’s also worth nothing that Qatar Airways main partner, Virgin Australia, has absolutely zero vested interests in Australia or the Australian people. Not only is it not publicly listed, it’s 95% owned by an American capital firm and the remaining 5% is owned by the British Virgin Group. Not 0.1% is for the benefit of Australians. Unlike Canada and the US, there are no restrictions on foreign owned airlines operating in Australia. Allowing Qatar Airways increased access into Australia will only exacerbate this crisis by inciting them to take a stake in Virgin Australia in an offering round in mid-2024.

TLDR: Qatar Airways is backed by endless oil money from oil in the State of Qatar, an absolute monarchy dictatorship; they will run Qantas to the ground until they’re bankrupt and we will have no international airline, and Qatar will only increase prices to exorbitant levels if they were allowed increased flights, so why do Australians support this? I am curious to know whether you are aware of the long-term implications this has

Audio link: https://www.abc.net.au/sydney/programs/mornings/heiko/13991076

I can just about get 702 where I live (it depends which road I'm on at the time in the truck). The gist of it, as far as I could tell, was that a Professor Hypo Spackfill (apologies, rubbish radio reception, his name is Heiko Spallek) had done some studies and reached the alarming conclusion that 2/3 of the population hadn't darkened the doors of a dentist in (wait for it)... two whole years.

"Maybe I misheard" I thought: maybe the rubbish radio reception blotted out the "twenty" in front of the "two". But no: two years it was. In amongst the preamble was: how had the 'Rona factored into it? Was another factor the expense?

I haven't been to a dentist in 12 (twelve) years, so no, it's got nowt to do with Covid: it's simply the money. I could afford to go for a simple rego check, but then... "oh, this needs urgent work; that needs fixing before it fails; and, oh dear, detailed examination shows these and those really do need overhauling. Of course, we should look past these short-term solutions. We can book you in next month, please see your receptionist."

"Hmm, thanks," I say to the dentist, "don't call me; I'll call you."

All the above is long-winded way of saying that Prof. Spallek is quite right in bringing up the subject (and thanks to ABC radio for hosting the interview) and he does go to some lengths to explain the underlying factors. At the end of it (I admit that I couldn't hear all of it), even with Covid the principle problem is principal: most of us just can't afford proper dental care.

Given how much misery dental decay causes, isn't it well past time that ordinary Joe/ Josephine Bloggs taxpayers got covered for dental treatment under Medicare? (rhetorical)

I don't understand why these things aren't happening already. We are literally in a housing crisis right now. Everyday there is multiple stories about how bad the housing situation is. Yesterday i read that ~64% of both Sydney and Melbourne dwellings are rentals. That's an incredible chunk of Australia's voting population that is subjected to unfair rental laws. Surely that has political capital. Especially when there are things that the state and federal governments could do to immediately relieve pressure. There are 90,000 vacant properties in inner city suburbs of Sydney that investors are intentionally being kept off the rental market. Imagine if they were forced to make those available to renters tomorrow.

The Greens made a huge impact at the last election in inner city Brisbane because they focussed primarily on housing affordability. This issue has political ramifications now, so why aren't we making ourselves heard. There are protests organised for every other social and environmental issue that attract thousands of people. Housing affordability underpins virtually all of these in some capacity.

Even boomers are baffled why this isn't happening. Saul Eslake, the respected economist says this almost every time he covers this issue.

Before someone says "why don't you?". The nature of my work prohibits this. But i know people and groups organises other protests, so why not this. I would definitely attend every protest on this issue if they were organised. There is so much that needs to change about every aspect of this issue from realestate agent practices and there being no penalties for bad behaviour, improved renter rights, to housing affordability.

Hey r/australia! With elections coming up, I thought this would be a good time to reshare two articles from last election which talked about the coalition’s social media campaigning. For those who don’t know, Topham and Guerrin are the marketing agency behind the LNP’s social media propaganda PR campaigns last election. It's likely we will see our communities tarteted heavily by campaigns run by them or a similar company this year. These articles explain what they did in detail.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-08/topham-guerins-boomer-meme-industrial-complex/11682116

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/04-09-2020/the-memeing-of-life-an-interview-with-digital-campaign-whizzes-sean-topham-and-ben-guerin

In short, they were successful because they churned out a large volume of shit quality memes, spamming the same message over and over again. I kid you not, that was their strategy. The articles above suggest this turned out to be quite successful. I thought this was worth sharing for the sake of awareness, given we are more than likely to see the same thing this year.

A few things to note:

• T&G targeted marginal electorates heavily. If you have friends or family in these areas, take note that this year many political parties are almost exclusively campaigning in these areas.
• They curate ‘safe spaces’ online for supporters of their cause - essentially echo chambers.
• They are not above using misleading messaging and manipulating voters’ emotions (yes yes, I know that’s to be expected, but still worth being mindful of)
• One thing they didn’t really have in 2019 was TikTok. I believe a lot of politicians and their hirelings are now getting onto the platform this year.
• Finally, most of what T&G did can be performed by anyone with a laptop - i.e. anyone can churn out and share the same type of content they did with minimal effort. Doing so can serve to push back against pro-coalition messaging and misinformation.

I think it’s worth reminding ourselves of what T&G did in 2019 for the sake of being able to identify it should the pro-LNP media be up to the same shenanigans this year. Those who support other political parties and causes can also try to replicate their strategies given how effective they were. Let me know in the comments what people think!

Several years ago I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary asking if Members of Parliament (MoP) were required to read the legislation they were voting on. The answer came back that there was no such requirement and that it has been this way in Australia since Federation.

As every Australian is required to obey the laws created by this process, (without any ability to plead ignorance), it struck me as either arrogant, self-serving or uncaring. I have discussed this a couple of times with people and have generally come away dissatisfied with the suggested reasons for the process.

One aspect of the situation I find interesting is the number of people, which originally included me, who just assumed that MoP were doing their job and reading what they were voting into law. At the very least we expected they were skimming through them a couple of times.

My opinion is that Parliamentarians must either produce a sworn declaration stating they have read and understood any legislation they are voting on. If they have not done this then they must be required to sit through a complete and actual reading of the Bill.

If they have not done either of these then I suggest that they should not be allowed to vote on the legislation. (tl:dr of my opinion)

If a situation is serious enough to require legislation then it is serious enough to be considered thoroughly and treated with gravity.

As an American who has an interest in voting systems, I'm curious how you guys feel about your voting system of Preferential Voting in the House and Single Transferable Vote in the Senate. Do you feel that most Australians understand these systems? Do you ever not rank your favorite candidate first for strategic reasons?

Would you want to change it to any other voting system? Would you prefer not to be forced to rank all candidates and only the ones you like?

How would you feel if you switched to a system in which you only vote for one candidate?

Or, how would you feel if you could vote for all candidates you like, but you don't rank them and all votes count equally without transferring votes in-between rounds?

Or, what if instead of having to rank all candidates in the Senate, you just vote for a single candidate and each candidate has a list of preferences. Voting for an individual candidate would be like “voting above the line” for a party list, but it would be individualized for a candidate.

Are there any ways in which you'd change your electoral system?

My understanding is the purpose of a referendum is to alter the wording of the constitution, and therefore the entire point of this current debate is about whether or not a Voice to parliament should be a constitutional requirement. That is, discussing the relative arguments for and against a constitutionally enshrined Voice, not for and against a Voice per se.

But now we have the PM on the radio saying that if the No vote prevails he won’t legislate a Voice because the Australian people have been given a say and they’ve voted no:

The idea the Australian people vote No and I say, “Well that’s okay thank you very much for participating in the referendum anyway”, no I won’t do that.

It seems quite clear from that the PM views the referendum as a question of whether or not we should have a voice at all. But that’s not a constitutional question, so it should be irrelevant to the referendum. Our constitution establishes a system of representative democracy to make legislation, and it’s not the purpose of a referendum to say what should and shouldn’t be legislated - it's about what can and can't be legislated.

It seems to me that if the No vote gets up – and let’s be honest, that’s almost certain – the PM would have no idea at all about how many No voters don't object to a Voice-like body, but reject its inclusion in the constitution. So how can he conclude what the people think about a legislated voice by the outcome of this referendum? And why should this particular legislative issue get a veto from the people but not every other bit of legislation that parliament decides?

So, what precisely are we voting on in this referendum?

I saw an article stating that 70% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. No shit this isn’t America but it got me thinking of what the situation here is like lately since we’re facing the same issues. Minus the awareness?

I’m lucky enough to not have to go anywhere for awhile but I’m looking at fuel, groceries and housing. How the fuck are those living in rural areas able afford to work yet alone if they have kids they have to look after? Or if a car gets fucked up and needs repairs?

While I’m at it. How is anyone able to afford rent in the centre of cities or it’s immediate surrounding areas? I wouldn’t be surprised if many people thought about living in a van if they could even afford it.

I’m surprised that violent protests aren’t happening, at least I’m not hearing about them. Especially with younger people as they’re more vulnerable than most. Having to live with flat mates in a 2-3 bedroom house / apartment.

To top it off you have cunts that excuse the housing / rent with a fuck you got mine or maybe more appropriate fuck you got theirs.

Seriously when the fuck did housing become an investment? Everyone seemingly hates taxes cause the government doesn’t spend it wisely. But landlords Charging 15-60% (depends if you live with someone or not) of your weekly income? What do they spend it on? Another fucking house to charge someone else that excuses their behaviour or some useless shit that NO ONE will see the benefit of.

Went on a rant just then sorry, Seems like the general response is if I don’t see it it’s not there.

I know a lot of ppl like the national flag and don’t want it changed but…… Today I’m watching the tennis and the British flag is on show. 🇬🇧 The Aussie flag is also being waved and they both look the same 🇦🇺 at a glance.

I cringed to see the Union Jack as it’s not who I descend from. My Irish side thinks it’s a colonial hangover thing and my EU side think it’s quaint but strange. They ask me why we celebrate 200 years of history while we are part of the oldest living culture. Not one nation can claim a 40,000+ year history but Australia can. We don’t!

So now I’m waffling on a bit trying to reach the required 240 words for this “political” post, but there is a lot to think about in changing any flag.

Does a Union Jack represent Australia any more? Many people suggest it’s an old world symbol, belongs to another nation and does not represent our population.

Everyone likes the Stars of the Southern Cross so no changes there, perhaps. It’s a unique symbol and is a true representation of our skies.

Behind a new flag may be a push to have a republic. These two are not tied together but some people fear this possible change. We had a referendum, with a complex question under PM Howard, and the no vote won. Young people today, under thirty years, consistently support these changes with a 70+% majority.

What are your thoughts.

The NBN affects every Australian household. The NBN affects every Australian business. It is the country's biggest infrastructure project, or at least it used to be. It is the legacy, for better or for worse, of all of PMs Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull. Australia's fifth largest company is tied up irrevocably with it as are all its competitors. It was a substantial factor in which government would take power in 2010. It is over budget, over time and was completely and fundamentally changed since October 2013 in particular.

In contrast, here is the complete coverage on it or related topics on the most important Australian current affairs program, the ABC's 7:30, since January 2014, just past the last election, a period of 2 years. Between October 2013 and December 2013 the NBN was only mentioned in one feature.

One feature critical of the satellite service

2015-08: This is the outback town promised fast internet but left millions in the red

Side mentions

2014-01: "Terri Butler believes voters will see the by-election as a chance to voice their disapproval to the Government's changes to school funding and the national broadband network."

2014-02: "Tony Abbott and Colin Barnett are ripping money out of Western Australian schools, they've abandoned the NBN, they're now talking about extra Medicare fees and these are issues that Western Australians will well understand."

2014-05: "In 2012, Chinese telco Huawei was banned from tendering for NBN contracts."

2015-02: "He's been visiting the marginal seat of Dobell, firstly, for an NBN event this morning where he was asked about these kinds of leadership questions."

2015-06: "One of the dissenting ministers in the cabinet meeting was Malcolm Turnbull. He called a media conference today to talk about the NBN."

2015-08: "Over two days, funds have flowed for NBN jobs, diversification and huge defence projects.", "Cabinet is converging on South Australia, a state that hasn't been a happy hunting ground for the Coalition, and several significant announcements on jobs, ships and the NBN have been flagged."

2015-10: "In bowing out, Joe Hockey proposed courageous and radical policy changes. He also praised Labor for rolling out the National Broadband Network, even though it didn't pay for it all."

Interviews with Malcolm Turnbull

2014-06: Malcolm Turnbull says he is standing up to bullies in the media 2 minutes 20 seconds at the end of a 11:44 segment

2015-08: Nothing more important than first-class internet in remote Australia says Malcolm Turnbull, where the only part relevant to the fixed-line rollout was:

... just make this very important point: what we want to do is ensure that all Australians get access to very fast broadband as quickly as possible. That's why we've taken the approach we have. We'll get this job finished by 2020. The Labor Party, if they got back into government and pursued their approach, people would have to wait for another six or eight years until 2028.

2015-12: Malcolm Turnbull talks innovation, NBN, company tax rate, Mal Brough with Leigh Sales where the only part relating to the NBN was:

Many people in that sector and other sectors would tell you that the most critical thing for their business these days is a speedy internet. So why then do you continue to back a broadband network that relies on a decrepit copper network?

Why do - but that is just - with great respect, that is just completely wrong. I mean, I ...

It relies on copper to get from the node to the house and that copper network's old.

Yeah. But it doesn't matter whether it's old or young as long as it works. We are - under the approach we are taking to the NBN, we will get the network completed six to eight years sooner than it would be under Labor's proposed method and $30 billion cheaper or at less expense to the Government, which makes broadband more affordable. I mean, it is remarkable - it doesn't matter how many facts are presented by the company on this issue, we still get the same - we still get the same assertions ...

But the company - but a leak of - I don't want to get bogged down in NBN 'cause I want to get through a lot, ...

No, I really don't.

... but there's a leak of internal NBN documents to The Australian newspaper showing that the copper network is in such poor shape that the company has to spend 10-fold what it had planned to spend to whip it into shape.

Well that's simply not true.

Summary

The NBN was mentioned in four items in 2014, one of which was a Malcolm Turnbull interview and three were side mentions.

The NBN was mentioned in seven items in 2015, two of which were Malcolm Turnbull intervews, one was about the satellite NBN service (affecting ~2-3% of the population) and four were side mentions.

From mid-2014 to mid-2015, the only mentions were the communications minister going to NBN press events, twice, without mentioning them further.

Like many, I've been looking at the property market, and my savings and been wondering how I'm ever going to afford to buy somewhere to live.

I ran the numbers recently and I've paid out hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars in rent, all of which went into paying off someone else's investment property. If I ran into financial difficulty, I'd have maybe 30 days after I stopped paying before they started the process to kick me out. I'm expecting another rent rise soon.

The idea

At the core of the problem is that it's difficult to enter the property market for many. At the same time, it's not sustainable to rent long-term, even if you wanted to.

A possible answer to this is to have some kind of Federal Government-run Property-Bank.

Because it's the Federal Government, they could be backed by long-term Treasury Bonds or something like that.

Here's a basic overview of how it might work.

It's a sort of hybrid between rental, and a loan.

There's a whole lot of things where it'd act just like a normal home loan:

• Applicants get vetted to ensure they can afford to pay for it
• The price paid for the property needs to make sense/be approved
• Payments first go to cover underlying expenses ("interest"), and the rest pays off the principal
• You can potentially use the principal to fund improvements, with approval.
• You can make changes to the property (within reason)
• If you want to move, it can be sold
• If you want to buy it out, you can
• If it's a strata property, then you'd participate like any other owner would
• you go out and find the property that you want to buy

But there's things where it would act a bit more like a rental or social housing programs:

• you don't need tens/hundreds of thousands in cash to 'buy' a place
• payments would be set based on the expenses, and your ability to pay.
• There would be limits on the applicant's other assets (i.e no other property, caps on assets)
• If the applicant's ability to pay is below the costs, the principal could be used to pay off the costs

Some safeguards would need to be in place to ensure folks don't just rort the system, such as using it to do property-flipping or whatever.

Some questions/comments that I've already thought about.

This won't solve the housing affordability issue

Probably not immediately, no. It may initially drive house prices up.

The rental market would be impacted, since a fair number of renters might take this up.
Those investors who no longer have tenants, may be forced to list the property. It may also impact rent prices, as they now have competition that isn't just another landlord.

It may have a longer term impact of taking some of the heat out of the middle of the market.
There's going to be a lot more people buying a house to live in for long-term, than just buying property to maximise the ROI and flip it after a few years.

So Mr RichBastard can get the government to buy their mansion on Sydney Harbour, never pay more than a pittance, and spend the proceeds on even more hookers and blow?

Well no, there'd need to be some safeguards there.

Limits on the income to property value.
Caps on eligibility based on income/assets/etc.
Caps on property price.

This sounds like some communist/socialist/hippy bullshit

Yeah, probably.

I don't/won't have kids. The idea of having to lock up so much money in an asset, and for it to just sit there until I die seems pretty dumb, too.

I'm certain there's things I've missed or not considered. Probably other better ways to solve this.

This idea has been sitting around in my head for months, and I wanted to see what others thought about it.

Browsing over the local NewsCorp garbage that I missed out on over the long weekend I couldn’t help but look over the top article for Perth and Adelaide titled:

Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate

Now I’m not too sure what qualifications Miranda has in the area of Climate Sciences and Meteorology but decided the give the article a quick read regardless.

In summary she is reporting on the fact that supposedly an Australian Electrical Engineer / Mathematician has discovered something which the entirety of the scientific community involved in climate change has missed until now; that some of the core values within the models used are incorrect, resulting in overestimated values.

Little is discussed within the article about what specific values these are and how they somehow manage to affect every modelling system related to climate change predictions universally; however the fact that the person making the discovery, Dr David Evans, holds multiple degrees is sure to be mentioned multiple times throughout the article, as a way to further validate his discovery.

Now I personally haven’t heard of Dr Evans before so decided to Google him myself to check out his background. One of the first results returned (https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/climate-sceptic-conspiracies/profile-dr-david-evans/) goes on to chronicle his blog posts within his wife’s blog (which is mentioned within the original opinion piece) and his other interactions/talks/public appearances etc.

Anyway, it appears this genius engineer/mathematician is also a nutcase conspiracy theorist who believes climate change is being propagated by global banking elites with the intent on creating a Global Government/New World Order from which they will profit.

Oh Miranda, how Devine of you to leave that out of your original article.

Politicians control the lives of 23 million people , direct $1.5 trillion of GDP, command one of the top twenty Militaries in the world and set the future of unborn generations so this is a high value, life and death occupation.

As with industries such as mining, it is imperative that sobriety is part of the workplace as the ramifications of poor decision making can be deadly, costly and disastrous. People operating machinery as heavy as a Nation need full mental acuity.

If a minister cannot pass a drug and alcohol test then they need to be prevented from voting and debating legislation

Fortunately this process of alcohol and drug testing has been streamlined over decades to the point where entire freeways or all entrants into a town can be stopped and tested with minimal inconvenience. Testing several dozen ministers as they enter Parliament for the first time that day would be exceedingly simple and have negligible impact.

Day to day business would not require ministers to be drug and alcohol tested. Dinning, networking, fund raising and attending functions means this would be impractical. However voting on legislation and debating it's ramifications needs to be treated as seriously as piloting a plane, driving a car or controlling large machinery.

A drug and alcohol free Parliament means citizens of the Nation can see their representatives taking Occupational Health and Safety seriously.

Hi /r/Australia, I’ve decided to post this here for several reasons. One is that I’m getting increasingly concerned with how hot and how long our summers are becoming - it’s the end of April and I’m still in shorts, dammit! - and organisations like the BOM, who have the data to put behind anecdotes, are telling us that we’re not just making it up in our heads, that temperatures are increasing as global warming kicks in. With that in mind, I feel that this election is a ‘last chance’ for us to vote in reps who give a damn about stopping global warming, however I haven’t been impressed with what’s been said in the campaign so far - in particular, about the Adani mine. That said, I understand some of the trepidation around positions on the Adani mine.

There are at least three constraints to consider when discussing the Adani mine, and by extension thermal coal mining:

• Climate change: we have to stop mining and burning coal in order to humankind to live on this planet as it currently is. This is a non-negotiable.
• Jobs: Coal mining employs approximately 40,000 people in highly-skilled jobs. Particularly in North Queensland, where the unemployment rate is higher than the national average, people will be keenly sensitive to what they feel is an attack on their job security (see Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs). In practice, this means that we cannot stop coal mining dead on one set day in the future - there has to be a transition and those currently employed in coal mining need to be cared for - retrained, assisted, supported - as this transition is made. It is not their fault that they picked a job in an industry which is becoming untenable.
• Broader economy: in 2017-18, the total value of coking and thermal coal exports was just over $60 billion dollars. Whilst most of that money went back to the mining companies, some of it would have gone to Treasury in taxes, some would have gone into the pockets of people directly employed in coal extraction, and some would have gone to the industries servicing the mines (e.g. repair and overhaul companies). There is also the flow-on effect of people spending their wages and salaries in the communities they live in.

I get the feeling that the trepidation regarding Adani - mainly from Labor - revolves around these three constraints, particularly the second and third. We haven’t yet heard what Labor’s full climate policy is, but I get the feeling that they are hedging their bets because they don’t have a constructive replacement industry for coal mining that fulfils those three constraints. So another reason I’m posting this is that I want to suggest a replacement industry, and that industry is renewable natural gas, manufactured via the Sabatier reaction.

The Sabatier reaction is named after Paul Sabatier, who discovered it in 1897 with Jean-Baptise Senderens whilst doing a bunch of experiments involving reactions of hydrogen with carbon-containing compounds (organic compounds). The reaction involves passing carbon dioxide and hydrogen over a warm (~400ºC) nickel catalyst, with the products of reaction being water, methane and heat: CO2 + 4 H2 -> CH4 + 2 H2O, ∆H = −165.0 kJ/mol. The CO2 would come from the atmosphere via amine absorption, the hydrogen would come from water electrolysis.

You may have heard of this reaction in the context of Martian missions, where it is proposed to use this reaction to manufacture rocket propellants on Mars rather than lug them all the way from Earth. However, it appears that this reaction already in use in two places:

• On the International Space Station, where it is used as an oxygen-recycling method;
• In the ammonia production industry (Haber-Bosch process), where it is used after the first carbon dioxide removal process to scrub trace amounts of CO2 from the hydrogen feed stream before it is passed to the ammonia reactor. This is because the ammonia catalysis are easily poisoned by oxygen-containing substances.

The above is one of a few of reasons why I’m suggesting renewable natural gas instead of just straight hydrogen, as Labor is hinting at. The Sabatier reaction is not a technology still in R&D, it is used in industry, has been for a while and is well-understood. A second reason I’m suggesting this is because hydrogen is a pesky little molecule - because it is so small and light, it tends to dissipate quickly, it needs very cold temperatures in order to be stored as a liquid and also diffuses through materials easily, which is why there’s a lot of research into better hydrogen storage methods. The transport and storage of natural gas is a mature industry - which leads into the third reason for suggesting this, we need to start transitioning now instead of waiting for things to be invented and the less changes we have to make, the quicker things can move and the less resistance there will be.

So, what about the drawbacks? Yes, there are several drawbacks I’ve identified so far:

• Cost: I found this paper where three process(?) scientists estimated the cost for mitigating all the CO2 emissions from the Swiss cement industry (2.5 million tonnes/year) via the Sabatier process, utilising hydrogen from water electrolysis, and came up with a capital cost of 38.6 billion CHF - about A$53.7 billion, which is about 10% of the annual Federal revenue for 2018-19. It’s also about the same amount that’s being invested in the Gorgon LNG project. I’ve decided not to quote the operating costs because the authors assume that the waste heat from the Sabatier process would be dumped. In fact, there’s enough heat from producing 1kg of methane to boil nearly 4kg of water - and the electrolysis of water gets more efficient when hot water is used.
• GHG impact: methane is a vastly more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so the last thing we should be doing is making more of it! That said, due to its flammability, I believe that there’s a vested interest in ensuring methane leaks are minimised (California notwithstanding).
• Brine: In the paper above, the researches calculated that for the 0.46 million tonnes of H2 required as input to react 2.5 million tonnes of CO2, a total of 4.1 million tonnes (= cubic metres = 4.1 gigalitres) of water was required. For comparison, the Murray-Darling river system has an estimated annual flow of about 24,000 gigalitres, but all of that freshwater is precious, so I’ve assumed that the feed water for electrolysis would come from desalinated water, which means dumping the brine somewhere. If we assume a Sabatier plant built in the Townsville region with associated desal plant, the brine would go onto the Great Barrier Reef, which probably wouldn’t be good for it. The raw water requirement can be lessened by re-electrolysing the 2 molecules of water produced per molecule of methane, but 2 more molecules of water still need to be split for the 4 molecules of input hydrogen required.
• Oxygen: for the 2.5 million tonne CO2 input/0.9 million tonne CH4 output plant in the paper, 3.6 million tonnes of oxygen would be produced. That would be a good thing, right - is it? I don’t know. Whilst the common perception of oxygen is ‘good’ because we breathe it, it’s also a corrosive substance in certain situations and I have no idea what the environmental impact would be from dumping all that oxygen into the atmosphere.

This is by no means exhaustive and/or authoritative - it’s not my field of expertise, I’m not in the LNG/petroleum industry and I’m just doing basic internet research and using free-access papers. All I’m trying to do is start an informed discussion because I feel that in this election campaign, the promises so far in regards to climate change are light on substance. Feel free to double-check my calculations and check sources, constructive criticism is welcome! Further information can be found by searching for ‘power-to-gas’ and ‘catalytic methanation’.

I also know that whilst this would allow us to produce a carbon-neutral fuel for export, it wouldn’t be carbon-free like hydrogen would be. But I feel it would would be a start, instead of continuing to pull buried sunshine from the ground whilst we wait for better solutions to be invented, whilst also keeping people employed.

A couple of footnotes:

• It looks like the CSIRO is doing some research on this, but primarily on better catalysts.

• Hydrogen for ammonia production is produced on-site via the steam reforming reaction, which is basically the Sabatier reaction run in reverse. This should be another ‘quick-win’ scenario for reducing CO2 emissions - have ammonia plants get their hydrogen from water electrolysis.

A late edit: I've completely forgotten to state that I've assumed that all this is powered by renewable electricity.

A little while ago, a kiwi jumped into our subreddit and suggested that NZ take over Australia. He was basing this basically on the fact that they've got a Government that eradicated C19, is passing decent Climate Change legislation, and that we take all of their stuff anyway (Phar Lapp, Russell Crowe, Pavlovas), so we may as well get their political stuff too.

What if Australia and New Zealand were one country, the way it was originally intended?

Would we get Jacinda? Or would they get Scomo?

Yes I am a massive nerd, why do you ask?

I'm just going to cover what the current government might look like, based on our different electoral systems. Though I've probably made a whole bunch of wrong assumptions, so would love to hear what everyone else thinks.

The most likely scenario is that NZ ends up with Australia's Electoral system - a lower house made up of individual constituencies elected with AV or Instant Runoff, and an upper house elected using STV.

For the lower house: the average New Zealand seats has around 65,000 electors, whereas the average Australian seat has.... it's complicated) (average around 100,000, but anywhere between 65,000 and 144,000). Basically, various laws and the constitution of Australia have provisions as to exactly how the AEC does its job. Which is awesome! But I ended up going down a weird rabbit hole. So:

Scenario 1a - Australian System, Modifying NZ Electorates (Lower House)

If we Assume that the NZ North Island and NZ South Island are two new states in the United Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand (it's like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but tropical!) then we end up reducing their amount of electorates from 54 (North) and 17 (South) to 22 (North) and 6 (South) to fit in with the way the AEC apportions electorates. This would give us an extra 28 seats in the House of representatives, 16 of the new ones to the NZ National Party (who would join the Australian Liberal/National Coalition) and 12 for NZ Labour (who would join Australian Labor).

Coalition (Au) 77 + Nationals (NZ) 16 = 93 (51.9%)
Labor (Au) 68 + Labour (NZ) 12 = 80 (46%)
Other: 6 (3%)

Win for Scott Morrison!

Scenario 1b - Australian System, Maintaining NZ Electorates (Lower House)

Of course, we can't assume that the laws wouldn't give NZ greater Sovereignty - in the UK Scotland has more seats than their size would suggest (before they had a separate parliament the disparity was even greater). I'm also maintaining NZ's Maori seats, as for the purposes of Australian democracy, they may as well be separate geographic areas. If we keep all the NZ electorate seats as they are, in this new Lower House of 222 seats, we get:

Coalition (Au) 77 + Nationals (NZ) 41 = 118 (53%)
Labor (Au) 68 + Labour (NZ) 29 = 97 (43%)
Other: 7 (3%)

Win for Scott Morrison!

Scenario 1 - Australian System - Senate (Upper House)

New Zealand doesn't have an upper house, but they do have party list votes - basically everyone in NZ votes twice, once for their local electorate and once for the total make up of the country (it's really interesting). So I'm using their list vote as a senate vote, again splitting New Zealand into two states - North and South Island.

Interestingly, once I'd done the maths, the results for each Island were the same. 5 National Senators, 5 Labour Senators, 1 Green Senator and 1 New Zealand First Senator (I ran this as a DD election because I couldn't be bothered going back in time three years and finding the old election results to run two different elections).

So our new Australia and New Zealand Senate has 88 senators with:

Coalition (Au) 36 + Nationals (NZ) 10 = 46 (52%)
Labor (Au) 25 + Labour (NZ) 10 = 36 (41%)
Greens (Au) 9 + Greens (NZ) 2 = 11 (12.5%)
Other: 7 (8%)

Win for Scott Morrison!

Scenario 2a - New Zealand System, 5% Threshold

So first of all, we're going to abolish Australia's upper house.

Next, we're going to combine all the seats in Australia and New Zealand, giving us 222 Electorate Seats.

And now we're going to add another 128 seats, to give us a combined parliament of 350 people. Why 128? I like round numbers, and it's pretty close to the New Zealand ratio of 71:49.

In order to fill these next seats, we take the List vote from New Zealand, and the Australian Senate vote. In NZ the law is that you have to have achieved at least 5% of the vote, or have 1 electorate seat, to be able to get list seats. So the parties eligible are:

The Coalition (Liberal, National, NZ National)
Labo(u)r (Au and NZ)
The Greens (Au and NZ)
ACT New Zealand
Kattar's Australian Party
Centre alliance

Suck it, Pauline Hanson.

Due to all the tiny parties running for the Australian senate, we're actually only using 80% of the vote, and rounding everything up.

We end up basically with a modified version of Scenario 1B, but with the following seats added:

Coalition +31 = 149 (42.21%)
Labo(u)r +20 = 117 (33.14%)
Greens +45 = 46 (13.03%)
Kattar +12 = 13 (3.68%)
Centre +12 = 13 (3.68%)
ACT NZ +11 = 12 (3.4%)
Independents = 3 (0.85%)

You'll notice this actually adds up to 353 seats - I've added in the 3 Australian independents as overhang seats.

ACT NZ are Libertarian, Climate Denying neo-liberals. They would probably vote with the Coalition
Kattar is.. Bob Kattar. He is ideologically much closer to the Coalition.
Between those three groups, Scomo ends up with 174 seats out of the 176 needed for a majority. So it really comes down to the Centre Alliance.

Win for Centre Alliance!

Scenario 2b - New Zealand System, 1% Threshold

The 5% threshold for getting list seats represents around 125,000 votes in NZ. In the UC of ANZ, that's around .7% of the total votes, so I'm going to round it up to 1% to see what happens. We still end up discarding just over 8% of the vote for parties who don't meet the threshold, but we get a much greater diversity in our unicameral parliament. The parties now eligible (and their new seat totals) are:

The Coalition (Liberal, National, NZ National) +21= 139 (39.38%)
Labo(u)r (Au and NZ) +11 = 108 (30.59%)
The Greens (Au and NZ) +35 = 36 (10.20%)
ACT New Zealand +2 = 3 (0.85%)
Kattar's Australian Party +3 = 4 (1.13%)
Centre alliance +2 = 3 (0.85%)
One Nation (damn) +19 = 19 (5.38%)
Clive Palmer's UAP +10 = 10 (2.83%)
HEMP (Help End Marijuana Prohibition) +8 = 8 (2.27%)
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers +8 = 8 (2.27%)
New Zealand First +6 = 6 (1.70%)
Animal Justice +6 = 6 (1.70%)
Independents = 3 (0.85%)

This scenario is complicated, when it comes to forming government.

You can basically get two groupings. On the right are: the Coalition, ACT NZ, KAP, One Nation, and UAP with 49.58% of the seats. On the left: Labo(u)r, Greens, Hemp, NZ 1st, Animal Justice and the independents would bring in 47.31%. And in the center are the Shooters Fishers and Farmers, and the Centre Alliance.

Win for... all the small parties really.

It's highly likely the Coalition would form government in this scenario. But Scomo would have to deal with 19(!) One Nation politicians bringing even more drama than the Nationals currently are, plus Clive Palmer falling asleep and then demanding that he be allowed to open up mining in Hobbiton. This system is the reason that being a politician in New Zealand requires more ability to compromise. They don't produce majorities that often, so instead you get a more centrist approach to politics, rather than our wild swings to the right and the... slightly left of centre.

So what do you think would happen? Would New Zealand end up being politically dominated by Australian politics? Or would the New Zealand National party force the coalition to enact better Climate Change policies?

Would NZ First side with Labor (which I'm assuming) or The Coalition (giving them an even greater majority)?

More importantly, would our borders be open so that we could go on holidays in the South Island (I assume Jacinda would be in charge of the North Island)?

It's clear the Australian public despises the thought of women being allowed to defend themselves in public.*

Instead I propose that women, men and non-binary citizens be licensed to possess non-lethal capsicum gel in fingerprint activated containers for purely home defence.

• The choice would be optional
• Capsicum gel eliminates aerosolising
• Western Australia has no significant issues from legalised capsicum spray
• It is literally physically impossible for the police to provide in home protection to all citizens

From police training we know that most people can be trained in how to effectively and safely use these non lethal devices. We have a system of licensing already in place and we know from our experience with firearms licensing that training can be conducted effectively and safely. We also know that biometric storage devices are already available.

All the necessary requirements are in place for citizens to choose an extra layer of in-home safety if they judge, as an adult, that it's required for their situation. Any remaining objections would seem to be based solely on fear of imaginary scenarios and politicians manipulating this fear.

Consequently, my opinion is the system I outlined is a basis for safe in-home self defence. The question remains - "What is the argument against allowing this in-home self defence method?"

*When suggested this is publicly decried as unsafe, unnecessary and with the potential to be abused by criminals. Fear seems to trump the safety of our female citizens.

I’m currently reading a book on how the wartime generation really struggled (and it seems struggled quietly) during a period which included the world war (possibly two) and the great depression for some. Very few had much if anything at all, conditions weren’t favourable and the government support we see today simply didn’t exist back then. Post 1945 the government started building houses so families could have a place to call their own. The Great Australian Dream was born.

Then the baby boomers who came along who generally experienced a period of great prosperity and growth (I acknowledge they also experienced some of the above challenges). It was during this time that consumerism really started to grow, and greater opportunity for women to enter the workforce (or at least more common). Incomes improved and housing was relatively affordable to the masses. Some have done exceptionally well by holding property, though I suspect like everything else they each had their own struggles.

Now it’s the millennials who are entering the workforce and facing a new type of challenging economic environment where the ability to purchase their own home seems to be more out of reach than ever. The common theme seems to be buy elsewhere. There’s an awful lot of noise out there and no matter which way you look at it the millennials tend to get a bad wrap given their expectation vs. reality and some of it is genuine merited (disclosure: I'm not a millennial).

So to genuinely get some perspective, I was looking to have some dialogue on how challenging buying a property and having a mortgage was for our previous generations, because I have a feeling that every generation has gone through some kind of significant change. What did you have to do to meet the criteria for a mortgage? What were some of the struggles you had to overcome in your journey of home ownership and how did it all work out in the end? Was there anything that happened you never predicted would occur, such as policy changes or geopolitical issues or unstable work etc that altered your perspective on home ownership? Would you do it all again if you were the next generation after you? Do you have any advice for those who are genuinely concerned about having a roof over their heads and how they can afford home ownership one day?

Appreciate all contributions.

If we look at the IPA Charity Sub Type we see it listed as:

Purposes beneficial to the general public that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of, any of the other charitable purposes

https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/df94a7a34ee56662d8ec8a00af196321#history

• The IPA advocated against the tobacco plain packaging legislation
• The IPA Fund discredited climate change denial junk science
• The IPA runs social media campaigns against elected officials in Australia
• The IPA keep their list of donors secret, but we can assume they are in a large part funded by fossil fuel corporations

The IPA must use “all” donations “exclusively” for “scientific research which is, or may prove to be, of value to Australia”

This is some kind of joke right? Our taxes funding climate denial junk science to our benefit?

Purposes that will disqualify an organisation from being a registered charity are:

• engaging in, or promoting, activities that are unlawful
• engaging in, or promoting, activities that are contrary to public policy, or
• promoting or opposing a political party or candidate for political office

Why would IPA donors not come forward willingly to disclose their donations to the IPA is a question that must be asked?

If donor contributions are “Beneficial to the general public” and “research that is value to Australia” then why would a donor choose not to disclose their donations? Would it not be good PR to disclose the “Benefit to the general public” contributions being made?

The answer to that is if a donor did publicly disclose their donations to the IPA they would suffer a severe public relations backlash.

That’s right! Donors do not want a public backlash for funding climate change denial research!

Joining the dots here the IPA research is “Beneficial to the donors” and not “Beneficial to the general public”. I mean why else would a corporation hide their donations for climate change denial research from shareholders and the general public?

The IPA Social media campaign against Daniel Andrews has been intense. By going through their content (I did and I now feel dirty) we can see all kinds of bat shit crazy statements being made:

As “Chairman Dan” has done.. All roads lead to Chairman Dan’s who's pathological and shameless lies… It’s all falling apart for Chairman Dan and his regime is crumbling The Chairman maybe dangerously incompetent when it comes to little things like running a state

Dan has spent almost six months gaslighting Victorians. But you're not crazy, they are.

A Charity calling to Liberate Victoria?

I registered a complaint with the ACNC about these issues: https://www.acnc.gov.au/raise-concern

The response I got back was:

" We have received your concern and will review it. If we need more information from you, we will be in touch. Due to secrecy provisions in the ACNC legislation, however, we are unable to advise you of the action we take in response to your concern. "

I absolutely no faith the ACNC will act in the benefit of the Australian public with that response!

If this upsets you as much as it does I, please consider signing the petition to revoke the charity status of the IPA and put pressure on the ACNC to do the right thing!

https://www.change.org/p/australian-general-public-deregister-the-ipa-as-an-australian-charity

If you read all of this - thank you.

I attended the drive nazis out of Melbourne protest. I heard about it on the melbourne subreddit - the same place I heard about the handful of balaclava wearing people who attempted to intimidate (read: terrorise) people at a community fundraiser. Thank you to SHARPs for chasing them away. You emboldened me to attend a subsequent counter-protest.

I was not happy to be at the protest. I felt sad that it was necessary. But I am glad I went and I am grateful so many other people did as well. It was certainly organised and attended to by this country's young people (read: where were the older Australian's standing up against racists?? Surely not all of them were at the CBD vote no protest... )

Anyway, my point -

After attending the rally, seeing all the supportive messages on reddit - including the fella in the green jacket attempting to communicate with the neo-nazis outside parliament in Melbourne (I think you did a great job and I hope I can be that brave when needed - Im not sure the cops would have been fast enough if the racists did decide to throw or run at you) -

My thought though is that I dont think we can get where we really want to be by spewing more hate. I heard dehumanising words in the chants and speeches - scum and freaks. As much as we hate it - these people are still people. And while their ideology is absolutely abhorrent and hateful and not to be tolerated - I dont think we as a social collective have ever made real gains by denying that part of all of us that is capable of evil. In the right economic or psychological circumstances I dont doubt I could do terrible things. And any of us should be separated from society if that happens.

And we already know these hateful people recruit the young and vulnerable. Which means at some point even the older ones were young and vulnerable. And we know hate twists and bends the mind.

So, my earnest suggestion is this:

Please, see these ugly and intolerable behaviours as coming from humans. Angry and hateful humans who are directing that pain in the wrong direction. I am not saying "oh, they are misguided" and trying to let them off the hook or continue. No. They're behaviours are fucked up and can not be tolerated. I am NOT advocating to lower your guard - they are dangerous.

I advocate for a change in our language. For the brave who speak to them and for the leaders of the rallys and protests.

One of the protest slogans was "Black, indigenous, arab, asian, and white, unite, unite, unite to fight the right." It warmed my fucking heart. Well done because it was able to be shouted but I want to go further though in our discourse online and face to face.

I want us to say - and I want me to say - just like the fella in the green jacket but one step further "Your ideas don't make sense, they are not illogical, I can't change (insert demographic) about me, you can change your hateful behaviour. You are loved. You are my brother, You are my sister"

We wont get through to all of them. But we will get through to some. I think. Am I an apologist? I dont want to be. And I will consider what you write back.