JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Books

The Petition, and flyers and posters for the convoy

In some towns closer to Canberra there will be so many vehicles that the AFP, and local councils have been called in to help. Some convoys are so large that up to five separate ovals and fields are being arranged per town to accommodate all the traffic overnight.

The final petition has been put together. Many thanks to commentors here. I was not involved in writing it, but I did connect together the people who did, and they found the feedback here useful. Thanks :-)

Download the final petition PDF file.

Final Petition, Convoy to Canberra, Coalition of Industries, 2011

Click to see a larger version.

Poster and Flyers for promotional information

Getting the word out makes all the difference. Don’t wait for the media to wake up. If you think about how much the extra taxes and inept management will cost you, taking action to solve this problem, by putting out a few posters is one of the most cost effective few hours you could spend. Pop in to a petrol station, or caravan park. Thanks for your help. Not only did I whip up a poster, but Michael Darby did too, so you have a choice. Both below :-)

Mine are only 2 essential pages, plus one optional extra page of details if it’s appropriate and there is space. Here are the first two pages. Below that, the PDF file.

Click for a larger image.

Click for a larger image

These two images are part of a 3 page PDF file for printing.

Download the Poster: 3 page PDF file for printing

Indeed, if you were ever looking for a tour to see this country, this could be your lucky week. Have I got a deal for you. ;-)

Michale Darby did a version in full-colour for every convoy. So here’s an alternate poster. There’s one for each rally like this:

Download the PDF of this style of poster (like the one pictured above) and then print off just the page that is appropriate.

Download all posters of each convoy : It’s 5 Mb!

Thanks to Michael Darby.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
The Petition, and flyers and posters for the convoy, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3u2b5w2

107 comments to The Petition, and flyers and posters for the convoy

  • #
    Greg, San Diego

    May your 44th Parliament be the one that begins turning Australia back to the wonderful land of liberty down under.

    Roll on!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I love those great big trucks. They’re a voice very hard to ignore.

    I wish you complete success.

    Roy

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Should be an easy drive, it’s all down hill to Canberra!

    00

  • #
    Fred from Canuckistan

    I had the great pleasure of working in Australia a few years back and the one thing that most impressed me about Australians is they don’t suffer bullshit or bullshitters well.

    Looks like that wonderful trait is alive and well.

    Give Gillard hell, folks, time to kick her political ass to the ditch

    00

  • #
    mondo

    As a non-truckie, I wouldn’t mind signing a similar petition. Has one been organised?

    00

  • #

    Nice to see ACTION from responsible and productive people DEMANDING that their individual rights be respected. I get so tired of irresponsible people pretending to be victims and who DEMAND they be given something to be provided by others. The others are finally saying a loud NO! It is going to be difficult for the political elite to evade the no but they will try. Keep up the pressure and demonstrate to them that they need you but that you can do just fine without them. In fact, you can do a whole lot better.

    He who is free NEVER submits. He who submits was never free.

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Lionell Griffith

    Like

    Dane-Geld

    It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
    To call upon a neighbour and to say:-
    “We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

    And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
    That you’ve only to pay ‘em the Dane-geld
    And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

    It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say:-
    “Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

    And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we’ve proved it again and again,
    That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

    It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should surcomb and go astray;
    So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You would find it better policy to say:-

    “We never pay any-one Dane-geld
    No matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that plays it is lost!”

    Rudyard Kipling

    00

  • #
    pat kelly

    Unable to download posters at either of the links!
    Messages: file is damaged cannot be repaired
    and
    expected a dict object

    ??

    00

  • #
    Emil

    I hope you are successful and have a safe journey. Are there any Amateur radio operators in the convoy that will be running HF mobile and/or APRS?

    00

  • #

    Pat, I just tested the links again, and don’t have a problem. I hope they work for other people.

    00

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Roll on!
    Washington State
    East of the Cascades

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    This whole convoy malarkey is soooo lame. You all come across as a bunch of sore losers who can’t get over losing the last federal election. Be adults and suck it up. You’ll get to vote again in a few years time.

    00

  • #

    Great Job, all of you.

    My fellow evil denialist miscreants and I here in the US are watching with great interest.
    The posters, maps, and flyers are brilliant–I especially love that one color is conspicuously absent. :-)

    Give them hell.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Good luck with the convoy folks. Let’s hope the media is paying attention.

    Meanwhile Ziggy seems a tad confuddled over at The Australian:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-degree-of-uncertainty-about-how-much-the-planet-is-warming/story-e6frg6zo-1226110445328

    Perhaps he is hedging bets a tad and trying t oshow that he is a fence sitter rather than an alarmist, but I thought I should reply:

    “Challenging the complex science or its conclusions from any one dimension is unacceptable”? I’m sorry, but when all the models clearly predict something (i.e. the upper troposhperic “hot spot”) and no amount of weather balloons and satellites can find it through direct measurement, then scientists have to admit that their models, and hence the underlying scientific framework of the system is … lets be polite, suspect. Let alone the fact that it is quite clear that the global temperatures (if that is even a meaningful concept) have stabalised in the last 10-15 years. Direct measurement trumps models and hypotheses every time, unless the way science is done these days is different to when I was taught.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    We do need a mechanism to indicate that the government no longer has the confidence of the voters. Perhaps opinion polls below a predetermined level for say, six months, could be a trigger for a new election due to loss of voter confidence.

    Additionally, I don’t think any politician should stand for more than two consecutive terms as they lose touch with their electorate and reality. The professional politicians we now have are the result of people who have passed their “use by” date.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Requote of Ziggy from bulldust @ 14

    Direct measurement trumps models and hypotheses every time, unless the way science is done these days is different to when I was taught

    The is an easy way around this. “Adjust” the measurements!

    I await the application of Victorian law.

    For the lawyers, do we have company directors, politicians, “scientists”, CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology and various media outlets who will be liable as the extent of the data fiddling and misrepresentation becomes apparent?

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Over at OurSay.com there’s a vote on the top 10 questions to be asked about climate change reporting in the mainstream media.

    http://oursay.org/the-sunday-age

    Have a go!

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Bingi @ 12

    Be adults and suck it up.

    Yep, the adults ARE “sucking it up” and as such are organising a convoy protest as they are sick and tired of the children we have running the country at present.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    At Anthony Watts, Ed Hoskins

    The withdrawal of the USA would then mean that about 85% of world emissions and 92% of the world population were no longer involved in any action on controlling CO2

    An opt-out by the USA leaves the European Union, Australia and New Zealand isolated in their continuing adherence to the Man-made Global Warming assertion.

    Makes a Carbon Dioxide Tax rather pointless, no?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Barnaby Joyce is someone the media likes to paint as a fool – oddly he seems to have a better grasp on reality than our current Fed Treasurer:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/to-those-who-called-me-fool-whos-laughing-now/story-e6frgd0x-1226110443720

    To Bingi the drive-by troll: What is lame is a country being run by the Greens. It doesn’t get lamer than that…

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Bingi”,
    Give the fact that you use the word “lame” clearly you are bearely of voting age.
    Go away imbecile!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust: “Let alone the fact that it is quite clear that the global temperatures (if that is even a meaningful concept) have stabalised in the last 10-15 years.”

    They can’t have stabilised as the CO2 has been rising and Salby tells me that must be due to rising temps.

    00

  • #
    Joe V

    There’s clearly something wrong with the text on the follow on Signature pages (downloaded from the link in this article):-

    1) the 1st. Line, after key petitioners address, beginning,
    “Vote on a motion of “no confidence” in the government so that the government ”
    Looks like the lines been cut off , mid sentence, OR that the line doesn’t belong there at all.

    2) Second error is omission of the word ” be” , in the middle of the 2nd last line , between the words ‘people’ & ‘called’.
    This second omission also applies on the Main petition ,front page, in the corresponding 2nd last line of texts.

    Am I right ?

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    Bulldust #20

    Last time I checked the country is being run by the Australian Labor Party. The last Federal Budget was brought down by Wayne Swan, ALP, Member for Lilley.

    43rd Parliament: List of Members by Political Party.

    http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-party.asp

    00

  • #
    Joe V

    At #23 , I’m referring to the text Of the Petition, as downloaded from :-
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/protest/coaliton-of-industries-petition.pdf
    and also as reproduced in this article above.

    00

  • #
    J.H.

    Yeah…. That’s even better…. keep it succinct and on point. Too many issues muddy the waters.

    For the transport industry and all businesses in general, the issue is the Carbon dioxide tax and it’s ruinous effects.

    For the Australian people, the issue is Julia Gillard’s ability to be a truthful and honest leader….. So this petition is a good reflection of the Australian people’s outrage combined with industry’s concerns…… Well done all.

    Now we gotta sign it.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Bingi @ 24

    Last time I checked….

    hahaha, don’t look away for too long between those checks. This abomination of a so called “government” will be GONE soon enough – assigned to the political rubbish bin where they belong.

    00

  • #
    The _observer

    If the Gillard Labor government is wondering just why Aussies are angry about her futile attempt at controlling greenhouse gas emissions, & hence, global temperature, she would do well to take note of the facts.

    The EU, NZ & our tax will not save the Great Barrier Reef when the rest of the globe intends to do nothing -
    http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/edmh2.png

    Read it & weep – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/07/worldwide-co2-emissions-and-the-futility-of-any-action-in-the-west/#more-44703

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Bingi@24

    Last time I checked the country is being run by the Australian Labor Party

    last time I checked, the country was being run by Christine Milnes party

    00

  • #
    brc

    Well, the ‘Adam Smith’ commenter that spent hours posting on the previous thread really scored an own-goal there, if the intention was to disrupt and discredit the convoy. All that constructive criticism has really sharpened up the petition a lot! It’s much, much better now.

    I’m interested to see if the TV news starts picking up on this before it gets to canberra. Once upon a time, a 60 minutes reporter would have embedded themselves with the convoy, just to hear what people involved had to say.

    Instead, we’ll get activist reporters combing through footage, looking for a ‘bitch’ sign and trying to find the weirdest nutter in the crowd for a soundbite and a media impression in a 10 second newsgrab. I’m not involved in the convoy, but I urge those who are to find and isolate any people who try to subvert the movement for their own ends. If you want it to be taken seriously and not just a collection of whingers and nutcases that you will be painted out to be (as is patently already the attempt). Spread the word, keep the message simple, appoint official PR people for each leg of the convoy to handle all media interviews. Leave the personal attack signs at home. Don’t sink to the John Howard pinata-toting hypocrites level, as tempting as it might be.

    At least the Greens and GetUp people won’t bother you much, seeing as most of the convoy will be out of mobile internet coverage.

    00

  • #
    Matilda

    brc..Getup/greens have been working overtime on the http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/convoy-of-no-confidence-in-the site. Those organising it are doing a wonderful job and the work they are putting in is amazing! Stop by and read thru the threads and you can see the trolls wander in, create distractions, and move away until the next lot come on duty. The convoy is about the Australian people. Gillard will not come to the people or listen, so the people will go to her. Don’t forget many many in this convoy are giving up at least 2 weeks work. We have to ask ourselves what can we do to help too? Even just supporting them at their stopovers with words of encouragement will help boost them! What a wonderful thing to be part of this history making trip!!

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Video: Koozzoo News – Carbon Tax
    http://vidcall.com/index.php/videos/show/2090/

    00

  • #

    Joe V – thanks. I’ve passed on your comment to Mick. Cheers.

    Adam Smith, thanks too :-) (Where is he now?)

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Finally got my “What a carbon price means for you” through the mail. Can I take this back and get my dollar refund off my taxes for propoganda I never wanted, for a non-existant problem, solved with a non-solution, provided with no political mandate?

    Bingi: Bazinga! What a retort… oh dear me, I guess I should retire from blogging now…

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Dave: #15

    We do need a mechanism to indicate that the government no longer has the confidence of the voters.

    Actually, you do.

    Lets, for the sake of discussion, assume that this Government brings in a carbon tax of $x per tonne of plant food. Of course, the tax represents an increase in operating costs to the “the big polluters”, so it simply gets passed on to their domestic customers (overseas buyers won’t accept the increase), so the amount of $x per tonne doesn’t stay as that – it goes up at each stage of the supply chain, to say $3x per tonne (I don’t know the actual amount, I am just saying).

    Do you want to pay that? Do your friends want to pay that? Do the people they know want to pay that? Three or four handshakes, and you have a serious number of people. Do any of them want to pay this tax? Is anybody actually going to volunteer?

    But what say they just all spontaneously said, “No, I shan’t pay this tax. When I get my tax bill from the Government, I will just deduct the amount of this tax (to my own best estimate), and pay the rest.” What if half the population did this?

    Or, what if half the population said, “My tax bill is not itemised, so I am not going to pay anything until it is”.

    The government is not going to publish this, but under British Common Law, a refusal to pay a tax, by greater than half of the number of taxpayers, constitutes a referendum. As far as I am aware, Australian law is based on British law, which is based on the Common Law.

    And there is a precedent. A previous refusal by taxpayers to meet the demands imposed by the Government, is what led to the Magna Carta, when the nobles told the King to stuff his taxes. Since that time, the Government is only allowed to impose taxes at the will of the people.

    But even if the Australian Government refuses to recognise the sovereign preeminence of Common Law, are they seriously going to prosecute half of the taxpayers in Australia? Just think of the implications. They would be a laughing stock. And what about the diplomatic fall-out? Cushy jobs for retired Australian politicians would become few and far between.

    Now, for the sake of clarity, I am not suggesting that anybody take this seriously, and I certainly don’t want to be accused of sedition, but it is pleasant to kick back with a nice cool beverage at the end of the day, and muse on the, “wouldn’t it be nice if …”

    00

  • #

    First of all, #hookergate – the misuse of funds by Craig Thomson MP – could bring this regime down right now if enough attention is on it!

    in terms of the petition, 50,000 signatures would make it a referendum… a binding referendum… It would also be an exercise of the sovereign power of the Australian people under section 128 of the Constitution. :)

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Jud and I will be heading down with the Brisbane convoy, flying our white banner. May I suggest that any readers who are going to Canberra take with them their Propaganda Booklet, Clean Energy Future, unopened and leave it at Parliament House. I was going to return to sender but thought Australia Post would simply bin them. Personal delivery may have a bigger impact especially if the press are present.

    00

  • #

    Hi, I’ve been picking up quite a bit of search related traffic on the blog post I did about this, I’ve put links back to here and the official site.

    Also some posts I did about the carbon tax indicate a definite up tick in interest in actually questioning the tax (I won’t say the words they are using, but they sure do indicate a lot of factual searching and questioning going on – great to see).

    Keep up the good work everyone!

    00

  • #
    steve

    From a Brit who is watching with envy from afar, I wish you all good luck. I would love to be there to join in.

    00

  • #

    Odd!
    The single biggest losing stock in today’s (Monday) stock market fall was a company called ….. Infigen, which dropped a remarkable 5.8%.
    Sound familiar.
    It’s the Company foremost in the Government’s TV campaign to suck us down into to advertise the, er Clean Energy Future.
    They own all those lovely wind towers etc.
    Tony.

    00

  • #
    Titas Aduxas

    The Get Up thugs have been quiet lately,Would they be brave enough to front up to a gathering of patriotic Truckies?
    I dont think so.

    00

  • #

    11 years of Howard/hate media government will sure take a lot of undoing.
    Thank goodness for the Greens.

    00

  • #

    More on: Gore Unhinged! Loses it on skeptical climate claims.

    Dprogram.net countering propaganda.

    http://dprogram.net/2011/08/08/gore-unhinged-loses-it-on-skeptical-climate-claims/

    00

  • #
  • #
    Raven

    I’m only just back in country , so much going on , the republicans are trying to bring on an inquiry focussing on gore and climate science , there is a major cleanup going on as we speak , I do believe Obama has come to believe something is not right !
    Can any of our US bloggers provide any in-depth on this.?

    Carbon Tax Protest
    There will be a Carbon Tax Protest outside of the office of Federal MP Laura Smyth on Tuesday the 16th of August at 11.45am on the corner of Langmore Lane and Gloucester Avenue. I would recommend all Business Owners to attend for this in order to put pressure on our local MP for a recission of this proposed new Tax. This peaceful demonstration will co-incide with the protest being conducted in Canberra and at various places around Australia. At the event, we will be highlighting to our Federal member of Parliament the dissatisfaction with this poorly conceived extra cost on small business and families. An open letter will be presented to the office of Laura Smyth at the event.

    Any one who can’t get to Canbera , Berwicks about 30 min from Melbourne CBD

    00

  • #
    Stephen Harper

    Off topic, sorry. But I think it’s a worthy diversion. From The Age:

    “The Sunday Age is launching The Climate Agenda – giving you the chance to decide what stories we cover about one of the most contentious, and important, issues facing Australia.
    What are you confused about in the climate debate? What do you want investigated? Are you furious about the proposed carbon tax, or curious about the role renewable energy will play in Australia?
    We are using the website OurSay.org to gather our ideas. Oursay is a Melbourne-based group committed to enabling more people to be involved in public debate. Using it is easy: Go to sundayage.oursay.org to post a question you want answered, or vote on other peoples questions. Voting ends on September 2.

    The Sunday Age commits to reporting on the 10 most popular questions and publishing regular updates on how we are going. So if you’ve ever been critical of the media’s coverage of climate change, here’s your chance. We hope you’ll get involved.”

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/sunday-age-launches-climate-agenda-20110806-1ih0q.html#ixzz1URoC9195

    I have posted a question and would like it to get into the top ten. I need votes. The question appears below. If you think it worth voting for please

    1) Go to the Our Say website and register (after registering make sure you go to your email address, open the email Our Say sends you & click on the link in order to vote), then

    2) Click on “next Oursay” (upper right hand side) till you get to “The Sunday Age” page, then

    3) Scroll down through the questions till you find mine and click on “yeah I agree”. You have SEVEN votes, so please give all SEVEN to my question if you wish it to get into the top ten.

    My question:

    The claim “the science is settled” is plainly false due to the many problems with the AGW hypothesis (eg. global temperatures have not risen since 1998 despite rising CO2 levels; alarmism is based on flawed models that do not reflect empirical measurements – positive feedback mechanism with water vapour absent/signature hot-spot in troposphere at equator is absent). Why is there no investigative journalism done to examine these flaws? – Stephen Harper, 7 hours ago

    00

  • #

    Mondo @5, I don’t know if anyone has responded to you. Apologies if I’ve missed it.

    But this petition is for everyone to sign. Go for your life! :-)

    Also, to everyone, please ring me 0417 815 595 and let me know if you’re going to join the convoy in Perth (or anywhere along the track, for that matter, Great Eastern Highway out to Kalgoorlie), even if just for a relatively short distance. I’m trying to get a feel for numbers so that we can help the police (who have been wonderful to work with!) manage our exit from… a spot to be announced tomorrow.

    If you’re going on the whole convoy, please email tullochard@bigpond.com with Your Name, Convoy #, Vehicle type and number of people. This will help us immensely.

    Jo, thanks for the flyers and the promos!

    Cheers,
    Janet

    00

  • #

    Janet, love your work.

    Rob

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Lawrie

    “”I was going to return to sender but thought Australia Post would simply bin them”"

    Had the same idea but decided to put one large copy in plain white envelope and cut another one into 3 pieces to go in three smaller envelopes.

    More chance it would go through since the only way to check is opening, and they shouldn’t do that.

    They are then obliged to post it on and collect postage at the other end.

    Any chance. Would any Aust Post Official risk the wrath of Labor by pushing this point.

    Yep, they probably bin them.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    I therefore demand that the Prime Minister with the concurrence of the Governor-General, immediotely dissolve both Houses of the 4!d Parliament ond o ballot of the Australian people called so that the people of Australia moy elect a responsible 44th Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

    The Governor General will not agree to dissolve the Senate without the Prime Minister presenting valid double dissolution trigger bills (a bill that has been blocked by the Senate twice with a 3 month gap in between).

    This petition is calling on the Governor General to do something which would be unconstitutional. Antony Green elaborates further here:
    http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/06/what-chance-a-double-dissolution-in-the-next-three-years.html

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Rereke Whakaaro:

    Lets, for the sake of discussion, assume that this Government brings in a carbon tax of $x per tonne of plant food.

    You obviously need to read the government policy document. What is going to be introduced is an ETS, initially with a fixed price of $23 per emission permit. Companies must hold sufficient permits to cover their pollution liabilities each year. At the end of the financial year they forfeit the permits to cover that year’s liabilities before buying new permits to cover their liabilities for subsequent years. If they reduce their emissions, they don’t need to buy as many permits, thus they save money.

    , so the amount of $x per tonne doesn’t stay as that – it goes up at each stage of the supply chain, to say $3x per tonne (I don’t know the actual amount, I am just saying).

    Err, why does the cost increase at each stage of the supply chain? Sure the cost is passed on, but on what rational grounds does it increase? In fact, it at each point it will be a smaller component of the cost for a good or service.

    Do you want to pay that? Do your friends want to pay that? Do the people they know want to pay that? Three or four handshakes, and you have a serious number of people. Do any of them want to pay this tax? Is anybody actually going to volunteer?

    Well what is your alternative? You could buy a good or service that doesn’t create as much pollution, thus it will have a lower cost, which is one way the market mechanism is designed to work.

    But what say they just all spontaneously said, “No, I shan’t pay this tax. When I get my tax bill from the Government, I will just deduct the amount of this tax (to my own best estimate), and pay the rest.” What if half the population did this?

    You are making a big deal over not much. The average price increase will be 0.7%. Some things like electricity will go up a lot more, but many other things won’t increase at all. The inflation rate is currently around 3.5%, so 0.7% is 1/5 of that. Do you really spend your days worrying about inflation?

    Or, what if half the population said, “My tax bill is not itemised, so I am not going to pay anything until it is”.

    Well, the only way you will be able to avoid the passed on cost is to not buy things.

    There are hidden costs in lots of things caused by, for example, laws that limit water and land pollution. Do you fret about those costs because you can’t see them itemised in the price for every good and service you pay for?

    The government is not going to publish this, but under British Common Law, a refusal to pay a tax, by greater than half of the number of taxpayers, constitutes a referendum. As far as I am aware, Australian law is based on British law, which is based on the Common Law.

    Well we can say that you aren’t aware far enough, because Australian statute law trumps the common law. Judges go by common law in cases where there isn’t specific Australian law, but when the Australian parliament makes a law, THAT is what judges look to first.

    And there is a precedent. A previous refusal by taxpayers to meet the demands imposed by the Government, is what led to the Magna Carta, when the nobles told the King to stuff his taxes. Since that time, the Government is only allowed to impose taxes at the will of the people.

    Which is determined by what bills are passed by the parliament, and what the courts determine is constitutional.

    But even if the Australian Government refuses to recognise the sovereign preeminence of Common Law, are they seriously going to prosecute half of the taxpayers in Australia?

    The common law isn’t preeminent! The PARLIAMENT is what is sovereign, and it can make whatever tax laws it likes so long as they are constitutional.

    Just think of the implications. They would be a laughing stock. And what about the diplomatic fall-out? Cushy jobs for retired Australian politicians would become few and far between.

    No, what would make Australia a laughing stock would be introducing an ETS late this year, only to repeal it in early 2015, only to reintroduce it circa 2020, which is the Coalition’s policy.

    Now, for the sake of clarity, I am not suggesting that anybody take this seriously, and I certainly don’t want to be accused of sedition, but it is pleasant to kick back with a nice cool beverage at the end of the day, and muse on the, “wouldn’t it be nice if …”

    Well what is even better is to think in the real world, and that involves a basic understanding of how Australia’s system of government works, and that doesn’t involve the common law trumping laws debated and passed in the Australian federal parliament.

    If Common law was the pre-eminent law of the land, then you wouldn’t be able to call Australia a democracy, because there would be nothing for the Australian parliament to do.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Adam Smith says @ 51:

    You are making a big deal over not much. The average price increase will be 0.7%. Some things like electricity will go up a lot more, but many other things won’t increase at all. The inflation rate is currently around 3.5%, so 0.7% is 1/5 of that. Do you really spend your days worrying about inflation?

    Just for giggles give me a few examples of any product or service that has no electricity consumed as a part of its manufacture or delivery? I think your math is wrong. Everything will cost more based on its energy content.

    When the government says “initially the tax will be $23 per tonne” I don’t get warm and fuzzy thinking it will go DOWN after the “initial” period.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Just for giggles give me a few examples of any product or service that has no electricity consumed as a part of its manufacture or delivery? I think your math is wrong. Everything will cost more based on its energy content.

    Well, what about education? Do you really think the cost of electricity in a classroom is more than the cost of employing the teacher? If a school buys a new computer for a classroom that would cost at least $1000 including the software, but you could probably power an entire school for a month with that much money.

    The reason I say this is an over reaction is because electricity is actually only a small cost for most businesses. Take this example of a butcher for example:

    The Herald spoke to the owner of Russell’s Meats, Russell Greenwood, who confirmed his annual power bill. It would in fact go up by $4000 a year under the 18 per cent price rises that were predicted for the first two years of the Rudd government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme.

    For Greenwood, that is undoubtedly a significant extra cost. But he also told us his rough annual turnover, which allowed us to calculate that in order to pass on all that extra cost to his consumers, he would have to raise his prices by about 0.187 per cent.

    For Greenwood’s customers in Coffs Harbour that would mean T-bone steak at $22 a kilo would now cost … wait for it … . $22.04. Minced meat at $11 a kilo would now cost $11.02.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-beef-on-carbon-price-doesnt-add-up-20110408-1d7fw.html

    The cost of electricity has risen rapidly over the last decade, but that doesn’t mean the cost of goods and services has risen by the same percentage. The reason for that is simple, electricity is only a small portion of the total cost of doing business. At the household level, the AVERAGE household only spends 7% of its income on electricity, even though the average retail price of electricity has increased by 40% over the last decade. Of course low income households spend a much greater proportion of their income on utilities, but they are the ones that will benefit the most from the increase of the tax free threshold.

    A major reason that electricity prices have increased so quickly is because of over investment in distribution (the wires) and under investment in new generation capacity (power stations). The reason for the latter is obvious, the generators have wanted to know what sort of carbon pricing regime they will have to work under.

    When the government says “initially the tax will be $23 per tonne” I don’t get warm and fuzzy thinking it will go DOWN after the “initial” period.

    No, over time it will increase. But if $23 a tonne causes a 10% increase in electricity cost in the first year, then the carbon price would have to double to produce the same increase again, yet that probably won’t happen for a decade or more.

    00

  • #

    Adam Smith @ 51

    How would you define the difference between common law and statute law?

    Does one have precedence over the other?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Well what about education? here: http://www.ohio.edu/sustainability/ou-energy-faq.htm

    Heated with coal: In 2008 the plant input 793,262 MMBtu of coal and 91,501 MMBtu of natural gas resulting in the emission of 72,423 MT eCO2.

    @$23 x 72,423 = $1,665,729.00 Who pays for that? (hint divide that amongst 22,000 students) about $75 per student per year!

    Notice additionally that the Ohio U consumes typically 126,775,354 kWh per year.
    Textbooks and sundry all made with paper. Paper made with electricity.

    Your butcher analogy is flawed too you’ve forgotten the cost increases for all the shipment of your minced meat and even the wrapping paper,

    The list is endless and that is why we are making a “big deal” over it!

    You know, I SHOULD CARE LESS if you Aussies are dumb enough to do this tax. The world wide economic shift away from AU will help here in good old USA.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    [How would you define the difference between common law and statute law?]

    Statute law means laws passed by the parliament, common law means the hundreds of years of legal precedents created through court cases.

    Does one have precedence over the other?]

    Statute law has precedence over common law.

    Here is an example. In the 1992 Mabo 2 case, the High Court found that a type of Native Title existed in common law that was not automatically extinguished by the arrival of Europeans. But this had the potential to create uncertainty regarding pastoral and mining leases, so in 1993 the parliament passed the Native Title Act to codify Native Title in Australian statute law. Interestingly, the Act also says that statute definition of Native Title law should coexist with the common law definition of native title, so they should evolve together.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    @$23 x 72,423 = $1,665,729.00 Who pays for that? (hint divide that amongst 22,000 students) about $75 per student per year!

    So, $75 per year, when those students would be paying, what? $15,000 for their tuition fees?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    OK dumbass; $75 for just the heat. You know $75 here $75 there, pretty soon it adds up to real money……and you ignore the electric, the costs added to everything else.

    I can tell you are one of those that believes there is no tax that is bad, no taxed amount that is unreasonable.

    Tax your way into wealth tax and spend tax and spend.

    Someday maybe you’ll remember back to this post ad hear this echo in your ears: I told you so…..

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    I can tell you are one of those that believes there is no tax that is bad, no taxed amount that is unreasonable.

    Only a dumbarse would believe that I believe such a thing. Only a dumbarse would make up the position of the person they are debating against because they are unable to debate the person’s actual position.

    I know something that is worse than taxes. Using debt to fund tax cuts, that then takes a country from a budget surplus to a massive budget deficit.

    It’s something that has been tried on a few occasions in a country called the United States of America. It failed in the 1980s, and failed again when it was tried in the early 2000s.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    It’ll be fun rebuilding USA (after the left Democrats nearly ruined her) to build her back up on the stupidity of the rest of the world that still fans the dying embers of socialism.

    You make my day Adam Smith

    00

  • #
    Kep It Real

    This is a fantastic concept, congratulations and best wishes to all taking part.
    I’m a regular reader of Andrew Bolts blog and have twice now submitted a piece about the Convoy of No Confidence and asked that he (Bolt) please give it all his support. Neither of these submissions have made it onto his blog and he has only made minor mention about the convoy sometime back.
    Does Bolt consider himself the white knight that is going to bring down this basket case of a government by himself and the convoy is going to steal his moment of glory? Get behind the cause Andrew.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    It’ll be fun rebuilding USA (after the left Democrats nearly ruined her)

    WTF? Clinton produced budget surpluses by cutting spending AND increasing taxes! It was Bush that sent the U.S. budget down the toilet by passing a tax cut without offsetting it with spending cuts, and by introducing a new prescription drug entitlement again without any savings to pay for it.

    The Bush tax cuts have been a failure on all levels. They haven’t increased revenue (because tax cuts very rarely do that), they haven’t increased jobs, they haven’t increased pay, and they didn’t lead to economic growth.

    to build her back up on the stupidity of the rest of the world that still fans the dying embers of socialism.

    If the Tea Partyers are against socialism, why do they campaign against any changes to Medicare?

    00

  • #

    Adam Smith,

    Our Government is a Corporation therefore statute law is company law.

    Our Government interacts with those registered with the company at birth through Corporate Laws or Acts.

    Our Government cannot recognise an individual outside of the Corporation other than as a Sovereign person.

    In Nature every soul is subject to a higher authority.

    Our government declares that there is no authority higher than their Corporation and their Statute Laws.

    To become a Free Person – a Sovereign Person, do you know a way to deregister oneself from membership of the Corporation so that if one is to come under judgement, at least it is under Common Law?

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Listening to Adam Smith talk economics reminds me of an incident in my old used book store (called “The Used Book Store”) in Boulder:

    A bright young man in his 20′s from Naropa University in town (spiffed up in a 3-piece suit, no less, for some official function) came into the book store. He wasn’t particularly interested in browsing or buying any books, but wanted to know how the pricing worked. I told him that we paid 25% of the list price on books we bought and sold them for 50% of list.

    He managed to look shocked and smugly superior at the same time (people in Boulder have a way of doing that) as he asked in a tone of mock outrage: “That’s 100% profit! Don’t you think that is excessive?”

    I could have gone into the economics he was absymally ignorant of: Rent, tax, employee’s saleries, etc., etc — but it was toward the end of the day and I wasn’t in the mood. I simply pointed to the large rack of “junk” books on the front porch. (Anyone could come, 24 hours a day, and take a book or leave a book. We encouraged people to trade, but didn’t really care as we got crates of them from people cleaning out their basements, attics, etc.) If someone wanted to buy a lot of these, we charged 10 cents each. (Restaurants did this a lot.)

    I said: “Do you see those books out there? I pay nothing for them, and sell them for 10 cents each. That’s an infinite percentage profit. I must be the richest man in the world, don’t you think?”

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Dumbass, look up in your educational resources what body of US government actually spends the money. (hint it isn’t the president)

    Oh and look:
    Bush: $6.1tr / 8 years = $0.76tr/year debt
    Obama: $2.4tr / 1.75 years = $1.37tr/year debt

    Get off the mantra that this is Bush’s fault it makes you look stupid.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Our Government is a Corporation

    WHAT? Our Government isn’t a corporation at all!

    therefore statute law is company law.

    WHAT? The federal government has a corporations power to regulate companies. That 1) doesn’t make the government a corporation 2) doesn’t make all statute law company law! The laws that define what the national anthem is IS NOT a company law!

    Our Government cannot recognise an individual outside of the Corporation other than as a Sovereign person.

    This makes no sense whatsoever.

    In Nature every soul is subject to a higher authority.

    Whether or not souls exist is a matter of debate.

    Our government declares that there is no authority higher than their Corporation and their Statute Laws.

    Our government has never made any such declaration. In fact, our constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from making religious tests for federal jobs, and from setting up a state religion, at the expense of other religions.

    To become a Free Person – a Sovereign Person, do you know a way to deregister oneself from membership of the Corporation so that if one is to come under judgement, at least it is under Common Law?

    People are born free, you don’t need the government to tell you that.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    I could have gone into the economics he was absymally ignorant of: Rent, tax, employee’s saleries, etc., etc — but i

    Oh OK, so you admit that electricity is only one cost for running a business.

    Thank you for proving my point.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Dumbass, look up in your educational resources what body of US government actually spends the money. (hint it isn’t the president)

    Stop reverting to abuse simply because you have lost the argument, it makes people think you are unable to debate.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    You stopped answering so I already won. The debate is over and you ARE a dumbass. That is not abuse it is a matter of fact.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    To reflect, only a dumbass would say:

    Oh OK, so you admit that electricity is only one cost for running a business.

    Thank you for proving my point

    I’ll let you think about why that proves MY point.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    You stopped answering so I already won. The debate is over and you ARE a dumbass. That is not abuse it is a matter of fact.

    Your first response was to start calling names, which demonstrated that you aren’t interested in free and open debate. All you believe in is group think and everyone agreeing with whatever it is that you propose. You don’t like democracy or liberty, ultimately you are a totalitarian and want everyone to agree with you.

    I’ll let you think about why that proves MY point.

    It proves that you are wrong. but you are too consumed with your own self importance that you simply ignore evidence to the contrary of your views.

    This is the behavior of someone who is a totalitarian and who hates democracy.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Adam Smith sounds like a troll-bot @ 71

    My first response was to ask you a question. YOU LIE!
    You aren’t interested in “free and open debate” YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PROMOTING A specific political outcome.
    Totalitarian? No and I do NOT want Dumbasses agreeing with me. YOU QUALIFY

    Lastly, and why you are a troll bot is that anyone can read above where no one suggested that electricity is the only expense a business bears. Proving you are non-thinking (dumbass).

    My work is done here.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    My first response was to ask you a question. YOU LIE!
    You aren’t interested in “free and open debate” YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PROMOTING A specific political outcome.
    Totalitarian? No and I do NOT want Dumbasses agreeing with me. YOU QUALIFY

    Lastly, and why you are a troll bot is that anyone can read above where no one suggested that electricity is the only expense a business bears. Proving you are non-thinking (dumbass).

    My work is done here.

    You need to learn to avoid reverting to abuse whenever you lose an argument. It makes people think you are arrogant and have a bad temper. It also makes people think that you don’t have any confidence in the position you are advocating because instead of defending the position you simply have to attack the person you are debating.

    00

  • #

    A cautionary note.

    Another thread on the Convoy petered out with lots of off-topic discussion and who-said-what and what-meant-what. There were numerous long and fatiguing entries containing many quotes, which gave the impression of analytical debate but not the substance.

    It occurred to me after a while that the main participant from the Left was deliberately diverting the discussion into irrelevant topics, and knew how this could be done. Much trouble was taken over a long period. The circuitous disputation was mixed in with some straightforward Labor shilling and spin, real central-committee stuff that had me thinking “GetUp!”.

    I don’t know definitely that this diversion was deliberate GetUp! strategy, but the topic of the Convoy did, in fact, peter out on that thread.

    I’m not telling anyone what to talk about, nor am I trying to preempt the mods of this forum. It is, however, my opinion that Labor and GetUp! are particularly alarmed by talk of the Convoy, and are prepared to go to extra lengths to divert and hose down all talk of the subject. Should we play that game with them?

    Anyway, let me repeat how happy I am that the Convoy is going ahead, and how much I appreciate the efforts of all organisers, publicisers and participants.

    ROLL ON THE CONVOY!

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    It occurred to me after a while that the main participant from the Left was deliberately diverting the discussion into irrelevant topics, and knew how this could be done. Much trouble was taken over a long period. The circuitous disputation was mixed in with some straightforward Labor shilling and spin, real central-committee stuff that had me thinking “GetUp!”.

    Instead of attacking people, you should stick to debating the issues. Whenever you revert to just attacking other posters it makes you sound weak and unsure of your own position.

    00

  • #

    mosomo @ 74

    I agree.

    When a good point is made it is usually drowned by a rush of trivial/antagonising posts designed to stir up another rush of posts.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    When a good point is made it is usually drowned by a rush of trivial/antagonising posts designed to stir up another rush of posts.

    My post #66 points out all of the mistakes in your post #63.

    You should engage with the debate rather than just avoiding it. If you don’t debate you are just as bad as an unSkeptical scientist.

    00

  • #

    Back on the subject, I won’t be signing the petition because I can’t get with the bit about asking the PM, with the concurrence of the GG, immediately to dissolve both Houses of Parliament. Firstly, I can’t see how that can happen legally, without the constitutional triggers and without observing the necessary time-frame. Secondly, I want the Queen, the GG and the Constitution kept right out of it, as well as those fragile but important conventions surrounding the Constitution. I really wish the Convoy was just a peaceful and popular demo against this appalling government. Challenging Gillard to an election is fine; asking her and the GG to do what even they cannot do under the Constitution makes no sense to me. If I’m wrong, I’m prepared to be corrected.

    In short, I don’t like the petition, but, rest assured, I love the Convoy. What we’ve seen in recent years is the Triumph of the Essay Writers, where modelling equals experience, spin trumps results and process matters more than outcomes. It’s the Age of Facile, the Age of GetUp!.

    The people in the Convoy are the people who sandbag rising waters and fight bushfires. Their whole lives are devoted to results and outcomes, day to day. They are heavy and constant private investors in science and tech. They do not lack intelligence, they lack a commentariat. I’m not saying they are right about everything. I’m saying: Let’s hear ‘em.

    Roll on the Convoy!

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    I won’t be signing the petition because I can’t get with the bit about asking the PM, with the concurrence of the GG, immediately to dissolve both Houses of Parliament. Firstly, I can’t see how that can happen legally, without the constitutional triggers and without observing the necessary time-frame.

    Yes I won’t be signing the petition for the same reason. Demanding that the Prime Minister demand the Governor General dissolve both houses of parliament without the required trigger bills is simply inviting a constitutional crisis that would make 1975 look like nothing.

    If that happened, the High Court may rule that the entire election is invalid, and thus force another election. It is a recipe for chaos.

    I wish the people who wrote the petition spent some time reading about how Australia’s political system actually works before demanding things that would be at best unlawful and at worst unconstitutional.

    00

  • #

    Adam Smith, it would appear that we are both on-topic and both in agreement.

    Nonetheless…

    Roll on that big, gorgeous Convoy!

    00

  • #

    Mosomo @ 80

    The United Nations Charter was ratified by treaty in June 1945.As demonstrated in the Franklin Dam
    case,treaties become the supreme law of the land. Treaties are only made between nations or sovereigns,so doesn’t that mean that Dr Evatt in 1945 effectively substituted the Australian Constitution for the United Nations Charter? Isn’t that treason? So for Adam Smith to argue that it would be unconstitutional for the convoy to demand another election,which constitution is he referring to?

    00

  • #
    Cate S

    Morning all. A quick read through the thread, something i would like to add here. While to some participants of the Convoy, the petition is vital, however to others it is not – of course, people themselves will decide if they wish to sign it or not.
    However, i would like to point out, irrespective of signatures on paper, the most important petition, is physical. Breathing, walking vocal Aussies – this is the petition in numbers that has the most influence…i still encourage all people, of all political persuasions to join in this peaceful Convoy.
    Most people have very definite views on where Federal Government MP’s (all persuasions) are going “off track” – here is the chance, to put your “issues” on a placard, hold it high and be seen – on the 22/23rd August 2011 – who knows, you may even find others there with the same views too!
    Cheers Cate :)

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    The United Nations Charter was ratified by treaty in June 1945.As demonstrated in the Franklin Dam case,treaties become the supreme law of the land.

    That was not demonstrated at all. The area was World Heritage listed, which meant the federal government then had the power to stop the state government from doing anything that would contravene the world heritage listing.

    Treaties are only made between nations or sovereigns, so doesn’t that mean that Dr Evatt in 1945 effectively substituted the Australian Constitution for the United Nations Charter?

    This makes no sense whatsoever. Australia joining the U.N. did not mean we handed over our sovereignty to the U.N. This just sounds like an idiotic conspiracy theory generated by someone who doesn’t know anything about the law or Australia’s system of government.

    Isn’t that treason? So for Adam Smith to argue that it would be unconstitutional for the convoy to demand another election,which constitution is he referring to?

    Face it. You have absolutely no understanding of how Australia’s system of government works. Australian elections are determined by the constitution and the electoral act.

    Tour idiotic United Nations conspiracy theory doesn’t diminish the fact that the Governor General can only call an election when requested to do so by the Prime Minister. The Governor General can’t dissolve BOTH houses of parliament simultaneously without a double dissolution trigger bill. That is, a bill that has been blocked by the senate twice over a period of three months. An election for the House of Representatives could be held now, but only if the Prime Minister requests it.

    This petition, and it seems you yourself, are asking the Governor General to just ignore the constitution, the electoral act, and 110 years of precedent and make up their own rules. If the G.G. did this, it is possible that the High Court would rule the entire general election was invalid, thus no one would be validly elected, thus there would need to be another election.

    00

  • #

    Adam Smith @ 83

    Why was the UN Charter ratified lock,stock and barrel?

    Which part/s of the ratified Charter don’t apply to Australia?

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Why was the UN Charter ratified lock,stock and barrel?

    I don’t know what you are referring to. Are you referring to Australia’s membership of the United Nations, or are you referring to Australia ratifying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

    Which part/s of the ratified Charter don’t apply to Australia?

    Australia is a member of the United Nations, that doesn’t mean that Australia isn’t governed based on the Australian constitution.

    You are way off in wackaloon territory with this one.

    Here is an explanation of when Australia’s next federal elections must be held, if you read it carefully you will note that it doesn’t mention the United Nations once, because the United Nations does not determine when Australia has elections.

    Commonwealth – likely August-October 2013

    Terms of the House of Representatives run for three years from the date on which the new House first sat following an election. The current House was elected on 21 August 2010 and sat for the first time on 28 September 2010. This means the term of the House will expire on 27 September 2013. Allowing for a maximum campaign period, the last possible date for an election for the House of Representatives is Saturday 30 November 2013. However, it is unlikely the government would run a campaign longer than the normal five weeks, making an election in late October 2013 the more likely last date for an election.

    Terms of the Senate are fixed except for the special situation of a double dissolution. State Senators are divided into two blocks, half elected in 2010 and continuing their term beyond the 2013 election. The other half were elected in 2007, starting their terms on 1 July 2008, their terms expiring on 30 June 2014. An election will have to be held by mid-May 2014 to allow the complex Senate count to be completed, but the earlier expiration of the House and the desire to avoid separate House and Senate elections means that 30 November 2013 is also effectively the final date for a Senate election.

    Timing is complicated by the Constitution preventing the issue of writs for a half-Senate election until one year before the end of a Senate term. That means the writ for a half-senate election cannot be issued before 1 July 2013. The first possible date for a House and half-Senate election is Saturday 3 August 2013.

    Taken from here:
    http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/02/future-election-dates.html#more

    00

  • #
    JoeV.

    mosomoso @#74

    It is, however, my opinion that Labor and GetUp! are particularly alarmed by talk of the Convoy, and are prepared to go to extra lengths to divert and hose down all talk of the subject. Should we play that game with them

    ?

    Indeed, drowning out any debate, like the mindless chanting of the group of American Youth activist ‘ Brown Shirts’ at Copenhagen (2009), only with more sophistry.

    I think most people twigged though and just abandoned that thread, leaving them to it.

    00

  • #

    Adam Smith:

    Every word of the U.N.Charter was ratified by the Australian government in June 1945.

    A treatise titled “The United Nations Charter as the Constitution of the International Community”
    by Bardo Fassbender,LL.M, Bundeswehr University Munich, explains well the matter.

    The U.N. Charter is in effect a Constitution to which Australia is obliged, by its ratification in the form of a treaty.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    [The U.N. Charter is in effect a Constitution to which Australia is obliged, by its ratification in the form of a treaty.]
    1) You mean “obligated”.
    2) You are wrong.

    Australian elections are determined by the constitution and the electoral act, and the desires of the Prime Minister of the day.

    Your U.N. conspiracy is distracting you from reality.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Adam Smith

    [Not Peckinpah’s masterpiece, but…]
    My favourites are Ride the High Country, The Wild Bunch, and Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.

    00

  • #

    “Ride the High Country” is my fave. But right now all I can think about it is….CONVOY!

    Only eight sleeps till the Convoy of No Confidence converges on Brasilia. Bring me the head of Roberto Oakeshott!

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Once Upon A Time in the West and the Searchers would be my vote

    00

  • #

    “Australia Calling – The Carbon Dioxide Tax: Australia’s Suicide Note To The World”

    http://www.zshare.net/audio/93448246c7a8a5f1/

    http://www.austnewnation.org/

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Once Upon A Time in the West and the Searchers would be my vote

    These aren’t Sam Peckinpah films.

    00

  • #

    [...] 22nd The Convoy of No Confidence arrives in Canberra. See Just Grounds for details. (Get the petitions in the post [...]

    00

  • #

    Adam Smith

    The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act says;

    “Whereas the people…………have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

    And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen: ….”

    A couple of problems occur here:

    1. There has been no United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland since 1922. It is now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So the Crown bit doesn’t apply.

    2.The wording of the Constitution would leave one with the belief that Australia is still a Colony – that we are a Colony of the Crown in the British Commonwealth.

    How would that effect electoral laws etc? Is our Constitution not a Constitution?

    Or am I misreading matters – please explain.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    [A couple of problems occur here:

    1. There has been no United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland since 1922. It is now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So the Crown bit doesn’t apply.]

    Dear, oh dear, the constitution came into effect in 1901!

    You are actually kind of right in a really weird way. If Scotland claimed independence, there would no longer be a “United Kingdom”, which would require Australia to become a Republic, else Australia would have no Head of State when the Queen died.

    [2.The wording of the Constitution would leave one with the belief that Australia is still a Colony – that we are a Colony of the Crown in the British Commonwealth.]

    WRONG! Read the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act.

    Or am I misreading matters

    Yes, you are misreading about everything.

    00

  • #

    Clause 8 says Australia is a Colony.

    The Constitution is an Act of the UK Parliament. It is UK law.

    It was never put to the Australian People for acceptance.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    [It was never put to the Australian People for acceptance.]

    For crap sake! Go and read some Australian history! Referenda for the adoption of the Australian Constitution were held by all colonies between 1898 and 1900. The only state to vote against federating was Western Australia.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Adam Smith, you are obviously a troll, and an illogical one (although, I repeat myself).

    Your “argument” style rarely rises above blatant assertion, and you try to dominate the thread with off-topic posts.

    One example: In post #51 you imply that the Carbon tax won’t be a “big deal” because it will only be a minority component of the expense of goods and services. When Mark D (and myself, in a post that was obviously too subtle for you) take you to task for this piece of sophistry, you respond with blatant assertions and ad hominem:

    Adam Smith (@71):
    August 13th, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    It proves that you are wrong. but you are too consumed with your own self importance that you simply ignore evidence to the contrary of your views.

    This is the behavior of someone who is a totalitarian and who hates democracy.

    Why is your argument sophistry (and hence, you can’t actually defend it)?

    Because your argument would apply equally to every minor expense — and since many (if not most) expenses of businesses, governments, and persons are, individually, a minor component of their total expense, the conclusion would be that (almost) no expense matters. Any person, company, or government that actually believed this would go bankrupt.

    Of course, anyone who expects you to have any economic knowledge or insight hasn’t been reading your posts. Your total lack of self-knowledge and insistence on spewing your views — 22% of all posts here so far — (and defending them with snark and ad hominem) reminds me of the ill-behaved drunk at a party that nobody can get to shut up.

    The solution, of course, is to ignore you, since Jo doesn’t like to censor people, no matter how illogical and useless their comments are.

    00

  • #

    Adam Smith

    The draught Constitution was sent to the Uk Parliament – they made about 60 changes to it,and that was it.

    00

  • #

    My partner will be driving down in the Pink convoy (by the way – pool noodles in shocking pink at $3 make really good vehicle decorators :-) ) These are the abstract issues driving us, as a small business, into protest. I can get into specifics and slogans, but I wanted to get reactions to these.

    The primary Climate Change issue is whether human emissions and activities (including CO2 emissions) are tipping the world into thermal runaway. However, I would like to eschew the usual debate and work backwards. In other words, here is the ALP Governments’ Carbon Tax, the proposed Australian solution to the Climate Change issue – what are the problems with the current political proposals?
    1. Whilst Australia may have a really nasty-looking per capita increase in CO2 generation according to the stats, the harsh reality is that in absolute terms, China makes that line look flat.
    2. We live in a real world. Actions have consequences, and there are only so many resources. There is also only so much money, despite the best efforts of the printers, and when we start making massive changes to an economic framework we should do so with a clear understanding of at least two things in addition to the voter impact: the cost-benefit analysis, and the secondary effects.
    3. Secondary effects range from an increase in the thing you are trying to control, to bankruptcy throughout sectors targeted by a tax, up to the end of civilization as we know it.
    4. The Government in power has no track record for deep consideration of the implications of its actions. It does have a proven track-record of policy reversals, knee-jerk reactions, running up debts, and betting enormous amounts on nebulous gains. It also has a tendency of allowing ‘big picture’ ideological views to override basic business sense, and pre-announcing benefits whilst positioning bad news and costs downstream. Finally, it seems perfectly happy to use an issue for political gain – in this case a great deal of tax money.
    Now, all of the above is subjective comment, but I draw your attention to a few points:
    • We will spend a great deal of time arguing about things we think we should understand, but are unconsciously impressed when the really, really big (complex, impressive, expensive) project comes up. We will passionately debate the cost or value of the house down the road, but shrug at the inability to accurately price a $50 billion network, or assess its ROI. One reason is because our minds still operate on a ‘one, two, three, many’ basis at a fundamental level.
    • Secondly, the vast majority of humans want to ‘do the right thing’ at least in theory. This tends to change when ‘doing the right thing’ carries a personal cost, but give a large percentage of people a button to press labeled ‘Save the Planet’ and they will get warm and fuzzy.
    • Finally, at least some of the political backlash is not related to topic. Put very simply, an increasing number of voters seem to believe that they have been led down the garden path in a number of areas, and the ‘Carbon Tax’ seems ripe for further abuse of the long-suffering tax-payer.
    5. The current Carbon Tax talks about financing research, but ends up throwing most of the money at the voters as a bare-faced bribe. For some reason, I doubt that financing play-stations in Paddington is actually addressing ‘Carbon Pollution’. Also, every dollar that goes through Government attracts costs, and is subject to a salami slice. Bureaucracy will be created to handle the work of taking and doling out the money. Australian bureaucracy is already bloated, inefficient, and a growing burden on the taxpayer, not least because of generous pay scales and index-linked pensions. No private concern would survive with the inefficiencies on display.
    6. At some point downstream, carbon credits will be traded. Unfortunately, traders are not going to be doing this for love, or to save the planet. They will be doing it for profit. Never mind that there will be enormous incentives to rort the system (credits from Belarus, anyone? How about Nigeria?). Traders generically have demonstrated a willingness to screw the system. See the California Energy Crisis of the 90s, when traders managed to manipulate a system with 45GW of capacity into shortfall against 28GW of demand. This is estimated to have cost California more than $US40 billion.
    See also the massive ‘carousel scam’ rorts in the European credits system, which ended up siphoning off what Europol estimated to be over 6 billion Euro of VAT revenue in eighteen months. In 2010, when several (not all) European countries put anti-fraud measures in place, the number of trading accounts plummeted. Denmark closed 80% of the accounts in its national carbon registry.
    7. The Government is betting on emergent technologies. Unfortunately, it is putting the money on the roulette table, rather than rewarding success, in exactly the same way the NBN and running fibre to homes rather than businesses is anticipated to enable the nation in ways yet to be discovered (the big winners seem likely to be TV and porn). Trading pollution is not encouraging solutions to pollution. Command economies are notorious for letting ideology influence investment and scientific research, rather than success.
    8. There will be strong temptation for government to put the Carbon Tax receipts into the general ledger – the UK appears to have fallen prey to this already. Perhaps it will start with ‘green’ projects, then pet projects, and then the Tax revenue becomes just another piggybank to raid.

    00

  • #

    Guys, less than a week till the Great Convergence of Big Rigs.

    Roll on, Convoy. Bring me the head of Antonio Windsor!

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    The draught Constitution was sent to the Uk Parliament – they made about 60 changes to it,and that was it.

    WRONG! The UK parliament did not make ANY changes to the Australian constitution!

    I know primary schoolers that know more about Australia’s political history than you.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Adam Smith, you are obviously a troll, and an illogical one (although, I repeat myself).

    You should learn to avoid reverting to abuse after you have lost a debate. By simply starting a post with an ad hominem attack like this, you demonstrate that you don’t have any confidence in your own position.

    00

  • #

    Adam Smith @ 104

    The Australian Constitution has never been agreed to by the Australian people.

    What was agreed to prior to 1900 was sent to the UK for enactment but the UK made over 60 alterations to the document and then legislated it.

    The altered document was never sent back to Australia to be voted on by the Australian people.

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    The Australian Constitution has never been agreed to by the Australian people.

    You need to attend a civics class where you will find out that it was passed by all states, excluding Western Australia, at referenda held between 1898 and 1900.

    Now that you know that, you should stop spreading lies.

    What was agreed to prior to 1900 was sent to the UK for enactment but the UK made over 60 alterations to the document and then legislated it.

    It wasn’t amended at all, stop spreading lies, it makes people think you are dishonest.

    The altered document was never sent back to Australia to be voted on by the Australian people.

    Be more creative, surely you can work the United Nations into your conspiracy theory too.

    00