Your Privacy -indeed, all your rights as an individual- is important to us
We will never share any details you divulge to us to anyone without your express permission.

Grow your own Veggies

Wall Mounted Unit
It's easier than you think!

Latest Post:

Will YOU Survive the Crash?

Beat the A. You could stock up on tasteless dried foods -and then have to be constantly eating the rubbish to keep under the use-by date- OR, you could stock up on Hydroponic Nutrients, and start growing and eating your own tasty vegies! This simplest and easiest system uses no power.

Get the full story
  Survive 2012 with Naked Hydroponics

Everything you need know about Naked Hydroponics
How to build your system
How to grow your favourite vegies
links to all the best Hydroponics info
$7.75 through PayPal for an immediate download.

or contact pete
@nakedhydroponics.com
for a discount.

William H Black

This is an absolute 'must-see' vid on you tube, for anyone interested in the current financial crisis. So if you're not sitting in a cave in the mountains of Tibet, go here...

The Story of Stuff

Another 'must see' vid, especially for kids (and screwy adults) who think the label is more important than the item...

Climate Change: What’s it all About?

A good presentation of the arguments on
 YouTube by Peter Hadfield.

QANTAS- Finally the truth is coming out!

 

 

If you’re a true Australian you should all support the Qantas workers in their Strike Action!!!!!

This is how these overseas parasites get paid millions to dog our great companies….

   
QANTAS- Finally the truth is coming out!
 
 

This confirms what others have been saying for a while about how Qantas is subsidising Jetstar to its own detriment and to circumvent the Qantas Sale Act. 
 

For those who haven’t seen it, Senator Xenophon’s speech of 23rd Aug is reproduced below.Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:37): I rise to speak tonight on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Australians, and that is the future of our national carrier, Qantas. At 90, Qantas is the world’s oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn’t feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, ‘Qantas never crashed’? 

While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable. Tonight, it is imperative to expose those claims for the misinformation they are. The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. In a moment, I will provide detailed allegations of cost-shifting that I have sourced from within the Qantas Group, and when you know the facts you quickly see a pattern. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it. 

But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas? 

To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar. 

Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. I have been provided with a significant number of examples where costs which should have been billed back to Jetstar have in fact been paid for by Qantas. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25½ million a year. 

Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, my information from inside the Qantas group is that Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar’s bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported to me that there are other areas where Jetstar’s costs magically become Qantas’s costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. I am told Qantas’s legal department also does free work for Jetstar. 

Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, insiders tell me, Qantas handles all rebookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. I am informed that Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This, I am told, is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. It has also been reported to me that when Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane. 

Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the inside information I have just detailed, I would argue those claims need to be reassessed. 

Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management’s word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, for I am told that what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth. 

Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls’ Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs? 

I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest. 

A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented tonight, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier.

 

 Contributed from an anonymous source.

 Editors note: Everyone in this company is extremely well paid; pilots getting around 9 times the median wage. Meanwhile in the USA, pilots on domestic lines often make less money than truck drivers.

They do it because they love to fly.

Much like small farmers in Aus. If you didn’t love the lifestyle you wouldn’t even consider it.

 

Holes

 


 

 i know you’ll love this one ,

 

 

  1. Kimberley Big Hole – South Africa 
 
Apparently the largest ever hand-dug excavation in the world, this 1097-metre-deep mine yielded over three tons of diamonds before being closed.. 
 
  
2. Glory Hole – Monticello Dam, California 
 
This is the Glory Hole at Monticello Dam, and it’s the largest in the world of this type of spillway, its size enabling it to consume 14,400 cubic feet of water every second. A glory hole is used when a dam is at full capacity and water needs to be drained from the reservoir. 
 
  
3 Great Blue Hole, Belize 
 
This incredible geographical phenomenon known as a blue hole is situated 60 miles off the mainland of Belize .. There are numerous blue holes around the world but none as stunning as this one. 
 
  
4 Sinkhole in Guatemala 
 
This photo is of a sinkhole that occurred February 2007 in Guatemala … It swallowed two dozen homes and killed at least three people. 
 
  
5. This is the famous Rat Hole in Canberra … 
 
It is capable of swallowing Billions of Tax Payers’ dollars annually, never to be heard from again! It is reputed to contain at least 400 arse “holes”. 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Australia’s Government!

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is your Australia Today *************************************

Whoever wrote this was pissed off…. but its a point well made.

 
 
 
 Political Bastardry!
On the 18th of August 1966 at Long Tan,Vietnam,
D Company of the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment,
mainly made up of Australian National Servicemen
and at that time located to support the American Army,
fought a battle against the Viet Cong.
In this action D Company lost 18 men killed and 24 injured.
The Viet Cong dead numbered in excess of 245.
The Australian lines were never crossed.
The Viet Cong withdrew.
American President Johnson and US Army Staff recognised the achievement
by awarding the Unit Citation of Gallantry on 30th May 1968.
The Award was formally accepted by Queen Elizabeth in 13th June 1968.
Prime Minister John Gorton made the formal presentation
of this American Citation to the Battalion
at Lavarack Barracks,Townsville on 18th August 1968.
On the 31st of March 2010,
D Company of the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
were belatedly awarded the Australian version of
“Unit Citation for Gallantry” (UCG)
honouring their extraordinary deeds at Long Tan.
The Government however refused to approve travel payment
for the surviving Unit Members or their families,
including the families of deceased Unit Members,
in order that they be present at the
UCG Presentation Ceremony
presided over by the Governor General of Australia.
In February 2011 the same Government of Australia
footed the Funeral Bill to bury the illegal boat people,
who tragically perished on Christmas Island.
This included flying surviving family illegals and survivors
to and from Sydney and Xmas Island,
accommodating them, etc etc,
plus a Coach tour of Sydney thrown in.
The Canberra Politburo had waited 45 years
to publicly acknowledge the bravery and sacrifice
of these Sons of Australia
and then immediately shit on their memory
by wetting themselves to appease the feelings of boat illegals forcing entry into our country.
Now we witness,what can only be described as, attempted political face saving,
by this same Government, sponsoring a TV Documentary,
to celebrate our Armed Forces accomplishments at Kapyong, Korea in 1951.
This will see our Prime Minister and the entire Priministeral Entourage
fly in a RAAF plane to Korea to mark this 60th Anniversary.
What Bloody Hypocrisy!!!
What a Blatant Affront to the feelings
of our Nation’s serving Armed Forces,
Past and Present.
Shame,Shame,Shame,
You Political Parasites.
You do not deserve to represent our country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Has Gillard ‘Hewsonised’ herself?

It appears history is repeating itself. Once again an Australian politician has committed political suicide by attempting to introduce an entirely new tax concept for a specific (and maybe even worthy) purpose. Surely we all agree that pollution is not a good thing?

Remember the GST? It was first suggested by Paul Keating, who was far too wily (and at that time, too vulnerable) a politician to try and implement it himself. He was content just to put the concept out there. John Hewson very obligingly picked up the ball and tripped over both feet trying to run with it; successfully managing to lose what many pundits considered an unloseable election.

The fact that Howard was able to make the GST a part of his platform during his second term a few years later simply demonstrates: a) It was no longer ‘an entirely new concept’; b) just how on the nose the memory of the Keating Government by that stage was; c) the fractured nature of the then Labor Party.

Hewson’s campaign was an act which I suggest is worthy of a new word in his honour.

Hewsonasia, nn: The politically suicidal act of attempting to introduce a new tax that no one (outside government) understands and no one (outside government) wants.

It appears Julia Gillard has just hewsonised herself.

Before it became a hip pocket thing, the majority of Aussies were prepared to follow the lead of the majority of climate scientists, and believe in Human Affected Climate Change (HACC). Many (like myself, and I would hope most scientists) might be a little sceptical of -with our current level of knowledge and understanding- anyone’s ability to make accurate predictions, but let’s face facts here.

World wide, we are currently using around 17 million tonnes of coal every single day.

About 84 million barrels of oil every single day

About 3,000 billion cubic metres of natural gas every single day.

Despite the fact that arguably the most ubiquitous material in our society today is plastic made from hydrocarbons, by far the greatest portion of these valuable, non renewable hydrocarbons is simply burnt, to produce heat and atmospheric pollution.

In the light of current knowledge that volcanoes, major fires and even the absence of contrails in the upper atmosphere can produce measurable changes in local weather and temperature, how can burning all those fossil fuels possibly not have an affect on our planet’s biosphere?

One of the cutest arguments to bob up recently from so called ‘climate sceptics’ (denialists) is that CO2 is not a pollutant. I strongly suggest the advocates of this argument spend 3 minutes trying to breath the stuff. “But it helps plants grow!” They exclaim. In a world where we cut down one and a half acres of rainforest every second, this argument makes exactly as much sense as telling a farmer all he has to do to get a good crop is fertilise, even while he applies Roundup.

Bottom line: not only is pollution not a good thing, but burning valuable hydrocarbons is really stupid. Not only are these materials necessary to produce plastics and a host of other products, but the much vaunted ‘Green Revolution’, which has done so much to feed so many, is entirely reliant on hydrocarbon inputs.

To put it bluntly, we eat fossil fuels.

Surely anyone who spares a thought for their children and grandchildren should be concerned about these matters, even if they don’t buy into the ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ argument.

Perhaps of even more concern should be the statistics on just how much of these valuable non renewable resources are left. According to good old Wikipedia,

Years of production left in the ground with the current proved reserves and flows above (daily production through 2006)

Coal: 148 years

Oil: 43 years

Natural gas: 61 years

Equally stupid is the suggestion that the laissez faire marketplace, which is almost entirely reactive rather than proactive, could possibly counter this impending disaster.

The marketplace will simply react by increasing the prices of these products, until the food riots we are seeing now in just a few places around the planet, will be almost universal.

Between 2006 and 2008 average world prices for rice rose by 217%, wheat by 136%, corn by 125% and soybeans by 107%.

How will you fair when your grocery bill more than doubles in the space of just 2 years? (And again, every 2 years after that.)

How much will your children be paying for food?

A tax on burning non renewable resources is as inevitable as death and, well, taxes. The only real question is how to best use that tax. Please note, I would like something a little more imaginative than taking away with one hand, and giving back with the other.

There are already viable alternatives to using non renewables. As I have suggested elsewhere, my favourite is wavepower, but for those terrestrially committed there are also thorium reactors, solar, wind, geothermal and maybe in the not too distant future, hydrogen fuel cells.

Domestically, some of these alternatives offer possibilities to individuals and families now. Unfortunately, only those with significant levels of disposable income can take advantage of these alternatives -and save money long term by doing so; eg. the cheapest hot water systems cost the most to run.

Installing solar panels will cut down on burning coal, and save you money, -if you have a spare $10k or so.

Converting your car to LPG will reduce pollution and save you money, -if you have a spare $3-$5k.

And so on.

Perhaps instead of hewsonising herself, Ms Gillard would have been better served offering Australians carrots instead of sticks, in the form of making all those desirable changes more affordable to the forgotten 50% of Australians who make less than $40k a year, so they can start saving money too.

You remember them, Ms Gillard?

They used to be called ‘Traditional Labor Voters.’

Here’s a simple one. Instead of ‘Cash for Clunkers’, how about ‘Cash for Conversions’? Currently LPG retails for roughly half the price of unleaded. Offer gas conversions for $0.00 up front and offer the opportunity to pay off the conversion cost by paying a 25 cent per litre levy on every purchase of LPG.

It would still be cheaper than using petrol; people could save money and reduce pollution.

And what about air ships? Lighter than air craft would be almost silent, not require long runways and use about a thousand times less fuel (or perhaps, no fuel at all). Yes they are much slower, but the trade off could be in being roomier and more luxurious; even including train style sleeping berths.

I would imagine starting up an airship manufacturing industry would not only offer large employment opportunities, but would possibly cost considerably less to start up than the NBN, and quite conceivably lead to export profits.

All it takes is imagination.

 

 

 

The Once and Always Hypocritical Paul Keating.

On the 27th October, 2008 Paul Keating wrote a ‘stinging’ letter to John Robertson. His closing sentence was:
“I am ashamed to share membership of the same party with you”.
As well Mr Keating should be.
John Robertson is actually a Labour man. Unions NSW secretary for seven years, Robertson led the successful campaign against the NSW government’s plans to partially privatise the electricity sector. Although he had previously ruled out a move into politics, Robertson allowed himself to be induced into the dirtiest game in town by -then- Premier, Nathan Rees.
In a letter to union officials, he said Premier Nathan Rees had managed to talk him around.
“I have been firm in my view that I would not be seeking a political career, until a series of discussions with the new premier this week,” the letter states.
“He has convinced me of his determination to bring the NSW Labor government back to representing the interests of working people (my emphasis) and in this context, has asked me to be part of his team.”
Mr Robertson said there had been a number of highlights during his time at Unions NSW, the major one being the Your Rights at Work campaign and the defeat of the Howard government’s Work Choices laws.
In other words, as I said, John Robertson is a bona fide, genuine Labour (with a “u”) man.
Whereas as the Right “Honourable” Paul Keating should go down in Australia’s history as the greatest hypocrite and traitor to any cause ever seen.
Paul Keating was, by any standard, a Neo Liberal.
During his tenure as treasurer, he privatised everything he could lay his hands on, deregulated the banks, oversaw the greatest interest rate rises in history which forced hundreds of home owners, small business people and farmers to walk out of their houses and off their land, forced Australian companies and workers to compete with overseas firms which had a cheaper labour force…
No wonder the Labor party misspells their name. These Neo Liberals have deliberately mislead the Australian people for too long.
We need to just use our eyes!
Kevin Rudd was a millionaire, married to the owner director of a labour hire company, and was openly antithetical to unions and the labour movement, yet he was and is a member of the Australian Labor Party.
Madness.
At least the Liberal (conservative) Party openly admits which side they’re on.
Some more gems from the “Right Honourable” Paul Keating.
“Were Robertson to be elected leader he would have no moral vantage point to lead from,” he said last night.
Apart from being a stalwart defender of the rights and wishes of NSW working people, do you mean, Mr Keating?
Speaking to ABC TV’s 7.30 program, Mr Keating also launched a scathing attack on other members of New South Wales Labor, accusing them of “believing in nothing” and saying the move to install Mr Robertson was “sicko populism”.
This is how Keating describes being responsive to the wishes of constituents, as compared to Keating’s own strategy, of doing whatever the hell he pleased, and to hell with the People.
It used to fascinate me, how the German people were so taken in by Adolf Hitler. Here was a guy who spent all his time extolling the virtues of the “Aryan Race”, including their physical superiority. His epitome of Aryan Manhood was Max Schmelling, a tall blonde German boxer.
Why did no one notice Hitler was short, dark and very un-Aryan?
When are we going to notice our Labor Party is anti Labour?
It’s past time for a new thesis. I would suggest a new political party is required.
It could well be called: The Real Australian Labour Party.

Are you in favour of privatising public utilities?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Changing the System; Study is Work.

As one who has on several occasions been forced to accept the dole, I know how pitifully inadequate it is to maintain a family. I was of course still very grateful to the taxpayers of Australia to receive it -as well as humbled if not humiliated, in the process.

So you might be surprised to learn that I honestly believe we should end the dole, forever.

I don’t understand the logic of forcing our children from a very young age to ‘work’ at school five days a week, plus homework on weekends, up to a certain age when they are able to get paid to sit at home watching TV, until such time as they can get a job. Is this a continuation of their education? How to adapt to conditions of poverty?

I have children at high school, and at TAFE. I have been constantly amazed at how much work they have to do, and the long hours they put in at their studies.

Without pay.

Meanwhile, I am at the other end of the spectrum. At 53, I have qualifications in several trades and skillsets; sadly all involving a certain amount of physical labour. I believe I have reached an age where I should be able to find a more sedentary occupation, but the money involved in doing extra courses is prohibitive, and if I have to take time off work to do them, almost impossible.

Howard, under the guidance of his Guru, George W., insisted that workers need to be more ‘flexible’, in the modern, rapidly changing workplace. All very well and good, but how?

The truth is, all of us are working longer hours than ever before, with worse conditions and less security. Where can we find the time or the money to further our education, and improve our lot?

Over a hundred years ago, Justice Henry Bournes Higgins declared that workers should be paid a ‘living wage’; ie a minimum sum which allowed a ‘decent’ standard of living.

It seems we were more civilized a hundred years ago, than we are today.

I suggest everyone over the age of eighteen be eligible for a basic wage -on an hourly rate basis. To earn this basic wage, they must perform community service, maybe army reserve, or do a course, at school or TAFE or university, to improve their chances of employment. The hourly rate gives them the flexibility to spend as much or as little time at their studies as they need, to either spend more time looking for work, or accelerate the process of achieving their qualifications.

Most -if not all- modules in tech courses these days have a time rating; how many hours it should take to complete the module. For those in remote areas, or who have reason to stay at home should be paid on a module completed basis.

This one basic rate should apply equally to all people, unemployed and pensioners alike; although in special cases, such as being over 65 or a carer, a certain number of hours a week would be considered to have been performed.

Employers would have to compete against this basic wage to get workers.

This would achieve a smarter, more flexible workforce. It would introduce school leavers to the idea of better recompense for application, and no free lunches.

It would take people off the poverty line, and give them a chance at a better life and a little self respect.

Schools could become more than places of education, but venues for networking between skillsets; putting potential accountants, lawyers and business managers in touch with tradespeople, inventors, innovators and small business proponents. Schools would also be de facto employment agencies, as the ideal venue for putting the right people into the right jobs, and offering a ‘one stop shop’ for employers.

Could we afford it? No, not under the current system.

So let’s change the system.

In the same vein, I think we should stop all cash payments in overseas aid; but that’s a story for another day.

Do you think our educational system favors the rich, at the expense of the poor?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Our Noble Leaders.

G’day.

We keep being told what a high standard of living we have. How we have had a ‘boom’ time, through selling minerals to China. How the ‘average’ wage has grown to $58k.

The median wage in this country is about $35k. That’s the figure exactly 50% of Australians make less than.

Meanwhile, our politicians are getting an extra $4,700 pa in their pay packets, in the form of an increase in an ‘allowance’. This allowance is now abut $32k, on top of the $127k plus they receive in wages, paid for by us.

These people are supposed to be our representatives. They have become so representative, they have to commission university studies, to find out what working class Aussies are thinking.

Does anyone else think their representatives are out of touch with real Australia?

Do you think our representatives are out of touch with YOUR reality?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

How much are they worth?

Have you heard the one about all pay rises must be linked to increases in productivity?

What do we pay our representatives for? How do we measure their productivity?

I would suggest we pay them to look after our best interests. In short, we pay them to find ways to improve the basic standard of living for ALL Australians; not just the privileged few. Since Malcolm Fraser declared: “Life wasn’t meant to be easy”, the gap between rich and poor -and politicians and their constituents- has grown monstrously, through successive governments of both persuasions.

And just as in Fraser’s day, when he said “we must all tighten our belts”, not long before granting all federal pollies a 9% pay rise, today, when we are facing the worst economic downturn in 70 years, our noble representatives are doing it again.

Incredibly, a few of our brilliant pollies have defended their pay rises with the claim that ” we have to offer big money, to attract the best talent”. This clearly indicates that all the existing politicians, who joined up before the pay rises, must be no talent bums who should immediately resign to make way for the new, talented pollies.

History indicates offering big money to politicians attracts people who are really interested in -and really good at- lining their own pockets.

If pay increases should be linked to productivity, how about this? Our representatives get a pay rise (dollar for dollar, NOT percentage) when the median wage rises.

In other words, we reward our representatives with a pay increase, when they manage to get us one.

Which do you think? Should our representatives' pay be controlled by a tribunal -appointed by our representatives- or should their pay be linked to the median wage?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

I quite liked this article in Ambit Gambit: Politics, Power and Pay.

I don’t think we can ask our pollies to do it for nothing, however…

These are the people who choose to send our children overseas, to places like Afghanistan and Iraq, to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country; their very lives.

What are our politicians prepared to sacrifice?

In Christian or Jesuan terms, how can our representatives ask our children to make such a sacrifice, if they themselves are not willing to do as much?

While our children sacrifice their lives overseas, our representatives stay home and discuss how much of a tax cut they should award themselves, or how much they can increase their bonuses by.

We have tried paying our politicians more (and more) and all it has achieved is better tax scales for the wealthy, and an increase in the gap between rich and poor.

Why not put them on a pension?

They will be in no danger of starving; they should still get travel allowances, and all the other allowances that are necessary for their job.

And if they find they still can’t live on the pension, then they will know how pensioners feel.