~ However, I will retain an overall interest in the policy questions that arise concerning these referrals generally, because those questions - particular the scope of “corrupt conduct” - will necessarily have ongojng ramifications for us.

This is probably the most important quote in the article from Paul Brereton’s email.

I don’t know that it indicates anything but the leadership wanting to limit the extent of the NACC’s remit to the most serious forms of “corrupt conduct”. I suppose from their point of view they have a budget, and if the NACC becomes too burdensome the next government might get rid of it.

But when there’s already been recommendations for civil and criminal pursuit of 6 people. I don’t know, more explanation is needed.

thought vomit

Lol! Good luck

Dammit, typed bigly and lost message.

I hate it when that happens.

First, Basque, Catalonia, Scotland et al are independence movements. Taiwan is a functioning democratic nation, (albeit without the recognised status). They have their own separate while related history from mainland China, check the wikipedia on taiwan its got a good a quick run down near the page top. They were a Dutch colony, Japanese, then Chinese, now on their own again and thats only since the 1600’s. Spain and England are also no longer demonstrating bellicose saber ratling language and behaviour, while they still disagree with the respective independence movements; China is demonstrating a distinct intention to take Taiwan, with or without the Taiwanese consent.

Specific comments on each:

Basque: I can’t comment too much on Spain’s relationships with Basque and Catalonia. I do know there has been movement to make Catalonia more autonomous, i don’t know if thats the same for Basque but i’d assume the situations are similar. Which means Spain is on the road to a peaceful settlement that works for everyone. Its also notable that the EU’s ease of borders and trade has also helped the Spanish State and the Independence movements live more autonomously but still together.

Scotland: A referendum was had on the subject before brexit. The order of those looked very strategic, or stupid, at the time by the Cameron government. The UK High court ruled that Westminster has the only legitimate power to hold another referendum.

Immediately post brexit the Scottish did want out, however the tide has gone out on this subject for now, cost of living pressures, SNP corruption problems, need to vote out Tories, have all added up to send independence down the list of priorities.

But by far the largest problem now with Scottish independence is how would Scotland and the rest ameliorate the similar effects to Scotland’s and the rests economy’s as brexit is having on the british economy. Scotland is integrated into Britain far more than Britain was/is integrated into the EU. Think roads, trains, defence, finance, postal, and everything else. This now presents a tough question for independence advocates to answer, and preferably there should be a plan before the referendum with it, because as we found out ‘Brexit did not mean brexit’. So independence might still sound good to the Scottish people, so based on the recent brexit experience a sober discussion needs to be had, and a real plan needs to be worked out otherwise its all a pie in the sky rush of blood to the head that could cause people a lot of long-term pain in their lives.

Indian Muslims: The subcontinent’s story is huge, and there is no answer but to say there is no changes from the ouside that would have a positive effect. Don’t forget Pakistan and Bangladesh are Muslim majority and were part of India. Indian Muslims are far from the only peoples persecuted in the Indian subcontinent. Indian partition was fucked up, and maybe India is better off as smaller principalities as it mainly was before the British.

I recently listened to this series, its well worth the time and explains that part of their history so much better than i,

https://open.spotify.com/episode/24liH113yVBe3ccfO7U4Z1?si=nUw26N4bS2q4PxFNf0Js6g

Yeah, I hated that example. Because its probably the least likely scenario in which we will use the Australian Military. As per our history shows.

Thats why i used an example of a more limited operation to lop off the Pilbara in some resource control scenario. Its, I don’t know, less unlikely than the whole of Aus? Lol

There are parts I agree with. We shouldn’t be putting all our eggs in the US technology basket, homegrown industry is best a diversified mix is second. Tying ourselves to the US technology pipe might work out, but it also might end like Keating says.

But his brainfart of an armada getting picked off before they reached our shores is fanciful. Last i checked we couldn’t afford to send a warship to the red sea because we don’t have enough sailors, and working frigates (was it 3?). Our submarines are rusting and going in and out of repairs. We have a few planes, but is that enough to pick off an armada? So whats to stop a serious attempt to lop off a nice section of the Pilbara? Lets be sensible, our military is functional but small, if we want to take our own defence seriously, then the current civic understanding and arrangements would need to change.

But the stuff on Taiwan especially. He is so wrong about. We as a nation should always defend the right of a peoples self determination. Not that we live up to that ideal very often, but he is from the side of politics that speaks in those terms more often, so his lack of concern is surprising. The Taiwanese very clearly want a separate identity to mainland China. And no shit they do, Taiwan has been a separate but related island forever. It has the awkward distinction of being the retreat point for the Chinese Nationalists, but thats a pretty small part of the islands population.

Anyway, i suppose its all way more complicated than all this, and thats exactly why I find Keatings comments on so many of those matters so poor. He presented simple solutions that would see Australia more alone instead of more engaged in the region. A loner nation, instead of a friend nation.

I had to recheck what month it was when i saw this headline. This sounded like it had April fools written all over it.

When asked whether he thought the Australian Olympic team had lied to organisers about their nuclear powered choice of transport down the Seine, Macron responded, “I don’t think, I know!”

Its shaping up to be a pretty bad day for Australian swimming based on the ABC article on the Olympic team coaches comments.

We need our government to step in and create a situation where we don’t need environmental vandals to prop up our sports.

Not sure i’m fully there with you on that one. Government seems to fund sports in general quite a lot, lots of other costs i’d rather them use any extra money on.

I think this is more a case of special interest associations like this need to think about the designs of their funding models if they want to avoid low levels of duress like this

knee deep snow

Um, snow here? Where was this centrelink? Up top of Mount Clifford?

Instead of snow, are you sure it wasn’t asbestos? Theres lots of that in certain places around here.

Well thats a good point. They must feel an extra pressure in general to live up to the reputation the public has come to expect.

I thought i’d put this response separately to the other to break the topics up.

the freedom to vote should be inalienable right granted every citizen in a democracy.

Its more like a duty with a nudge (being a letter and a small fine).

Seeing everything through the lense of an individual’s inalienable rights is problematic. This individualist, or libertarian creed promulgated by the success of US culture has made the atomisation of the cultural and public sphere seem ‘the only way of things’.

But a Country where individuals have rights gives rise to a duty upon the rest. Its essential for the assertion of rights that the rest have agreed to uphold that standard in solidarity with the individual. So the individual still relies on the collectives consent, implied or explicit.

When considered its obvious of course, even in the US this of course occurs. But its easily forgotten when reversed, and the needs of the many come to the doorstep of the individual in the course of their lives.

We all have a tendency to self regard, just like the ‘angry at compulsory voting voter’ but at times, inconvenient or not, we have a duty to take account of others needs. In that case the rest need the individual’s vote to ensure democracy remains legitimate, and holds from sliding into autocracy or worse.

The example of euthanasia is interesting, related is Voluntary Assisted Dying. This is actually a case where the collective is quietly recognising a duty to help a person in permanent pain and suffering end their own life on their own terms. So, this is a right for the individual, but their recently recognised right is giving rise to our duty.

People in a well functioning democracy have a well balanced mix of rights and duties, explicit or implied. For democracy to work we need the people to be engaged in these. The higher the rate of engagement the better. This doesn’t mean everybody voting on every minute decision; there are many ways to participate in democracy.

Does anyone think its “Democratic” for Tasmania to have the same number of senators as NSW ?

It is democratic, as it is still “representative” rule by the people. But as you suggest it is unequal per-person representation. There are reasons for and against this. You’ve highlighted the against argument well.

The ‘for’ argument, which has prevailed so far is, without the levelling power of the Senate, the Commonwealth of Australia will be dominated by the larger populations of Victoria and NSW. In a place as sparse, and with as diverse needs as Australia the ignorance of a central power base to the needs and aspirations of periphery populations will lead to animosity and disunity, thereby inhibiting and hurting the centre and periphery more than any disfunction caused by equalised numbers of Senators.

Basically its a mechanism forcing us to listen and value, in substantive terms, each other in our geographic locations.

Also, this ‘for’ view of the value of the Senate’s equal representives, to my mind, makes the idea of equalising the number of Senators from NT and ACT with the States an uncontroversial and desirable proposal.

There isn’t enough use of trapezoidal buttons on webpages. What does the internet have against trapezoids?

Ugh. Not sure its their best move ever. Looks a bit like a cheap Guardian knock off page with the round corner blue boxes.

A few British immigrants might as well.

Huh, i thought they’d be visting all over the country since its their first visit in this capacity.

It’ll be interesting to see turnout, i reckon there’ll be big crowds, peoples attitudes seem to have changed on them since they became the monarchs.

“It’s not an industry problem, it’s a particular business problem,” Mr Egan said, describing the business’ structure and scale as a “value-destruction exercise”.

This little statement is so under-explained, and yet its probably the most important statement in the article.

Instead of wasting a bunch of lines at the end by tacking on that human interest story trash, the writer/editor should have spent those words explaining the problem with the business structure.

Its a pretty long standing policy now, hard to have assurance of continuity of business for sure.

Its been a long time coming. The sentiment of the rest of Australia has only grown in this direction as the terrible animal treatment in other countries and the arguments for deepening of our own economic value adding processes have strengthened.

Farmers had over a decade since the last serious push for them to set up a different business model themselves and they haven’t as an industry done it.

Its time government stepped in to provide the new direction for the industry and finally take heed of the wider Australian moral sentiment about the treatment of our animals in these circumstances.

Maybe. The potential for an invitation to go across to be seen as a craven political point scoring exercise over an issue as catastrophic as this could damage perceptions of the party’s sincerity in their actions.

For instance,

The Greens purport to want higher Palestinian autonomy, ending with Statehood, but they don’t have the numbers themselves to affect Australia’s policy. Ergo, they need to negotiate with other parties to push towards their desired outcome, their best partner in this is currently Labor; so should they royally piss off their best partner in this matter by poaching a few members of Labor who are most in line with the Greens on this one issue.

Also,

Senator Payman is also pushing in the same direction as the Greens on this matter, but inside the Labor tent, that also has some value.