The long, soul-destroying national debate has begun. Should the Commonwealth find yet another way of pick-pocketing the citizenry by taxing sugar?
Predictably the Greens are behind the push, having gone to the last election with a sugar tax as part of their grab bag of feel good policies. The Greens have said they will introduce a “sugar-sweetened beverages tax” as a private members’ bill in the ongoing freak show that is the Australian Senate at some time over the next 12 months.
Barnaby Joyce was incandescent – well, more incandescent with rage at the proposal.
“People are sitting on their backsides too much, and eating too much food and not just soft drinks, eating too many chips and other food,” Barnaby said.
Perhaps inadvertently, the Deputy Prime Minister had outed himself as a hand wringer for the public good of a different kind. He’s pro-sugar but anti-fat.
Full column here.
A shocking end of year Fairfax Poll for “current” PM Malcolm Turnbull Mr Insider as all signs of support have now evaporated on the back of nearly 18 months of doing nothing. Never has Australia had a PM who has spent so long doing nothing for so many! Be off with you in 2017 Turnbull and give someone a go who will actually do something. What a wally Turnbull is. He’s already had 5 consecutive negative Newspolls as well.
http://tinyurl.com/hrbbj5d
Seems to be doing okay this week though
Jack have you any noteworthy predictions for us all for 2017?
Many and will release them prior to Jan 1 as usual.
From the Anglican Parish of Gosford signage;
Bloody Muslims Coming Here Scoring Our Centuries!
For those Cricket fanatics.
Too good not to share.
Another reminder that swords and alcohol do not mix: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/princess-beatrice-cuts-ed-sheerans-face-with-sword-while-knighting-james-blunt/news-story/44ff03078547d35fabc0b95281d82fa8
Yes a timely reminder Dwight.
Has to be a song in it.
The First Cut is the Deepest?
Mmm Dwight, she sounds a bit more lethal than her toe sucking mother.
All a bit of harmless fun in the castle, a few centuries ago it would have been off with their heads.
To be fair, the girls have done a good job of staying out of the media as they have grown to adulthood, seems this generation of Royals have worked out how to wrk the room.
Darren from the previous blog.
I will have to read “China’s Silent Army” – I have read “Poorly Made in China”.
There is anecdotal evidence that some of the African countries who accepted the generous Chinese cheque book are now having second thoughts. The Chinese do treat the local workers like c**p, and are causing issues. This also equates to the locals missing out on much needed jobs. Problems were also apparently encountered with regards to the Ramu project in PNG.
Unfortunately is seems that the Governments and officials of a number of African countries and heads of Chinese companies have similar corporate ethics…..
The irony is that what the Chinese do in Africa would be perfect for us here. Add a little quid pro quo – access here on a project by project basis in return for access in China on a project for project basis. That should give such projects special protected status as far as the department of justice is involved. Because there is no separation of powers in the Chinese system judges idecisions are subject to executive direction (meaning that no one is technically safe from changes in government policy unless their guanxi is strong enough – hold chinese projects hostage here and youd have a lot of guanxi). Instead we have a very dumb “free trade” agreement that allows chinese SOEs to pretty much run rampant here while the CCP and its cronies pick and choose which Australian businesses they want to knock off or give to locals.
I suspect it is very lucrative acting as a go between the Chinese and the locals who are flogging off assets.
One gets a very special insight into the process when one was part of the negotiations.
Partly related to your story JTI – the Chairman of the Australian Sports Commission supporting a sugar tax provided it is used in sport and health initiatives.
However the point of this post is that overall spending figures on high performance sports are used – the article compares total spend, where the UK outspends Australia by under 2:1. However, the UK has almost 2.9 x the population, and even taking into account the UK’s GPD/capita of ~75% of Australia’s, Australia’s spend on high performance sports per capita is higher than that of the UK. So why is the Chairman complaining? Use relevant statistics, not just an emotive headline figure. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Still on sports – a nice win to Australia in the cricket. Also a funny comment by Ricciardo in an interview before the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix about some car issues in practice “The car wet itself”. A refreshing character, and always with a smile (and not the cat ate the cream sort).
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/50m-lottery-our-last-hope-of-remaining-olympic-power-sports-chief/news-story/cdfa99986a85813428092d5ab8a235b6
There’s another model:
The U.S. Olympic Committee, unlike its competitors around the world, does not receive funding from the federal government for its Olympic programs. Instead, Team USA athletes rely on the generosity of the American people to achieve their dreams.
http://www.teamusa.org/us-olympic-and-paralympic-foundation/team-usa-fund
The only true national sport left in Australia is crying poor and sticking your hand out.
amateur ice production and car theft are doing OK…..
I think you are referring to the rentseeking upper class welfare. It is clear the better off you are the more help you get from the government.
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/australias-wealth-lobbies-begand-botherspecialists,9764
Can’t argue with that Dismayed
No, just everyone generally.
Dismayed, JOH and the rest of the Terri Butler defenders.
It would appear Ms Butler’s legal team have provided her with advice contrary to your apparent view…………You might have to take whichever subject dealt with defamation law again JOH.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-mp-terri-butler-apologises-to-qut-student-for-qa-smear/news-story/dd436ee88fce85237cbd8cd97ae503c6
She apologised therefore she admits liability? You know perfectly well that’s not how it works. But go ahead and and jump to any conclusion you prefer.
She should be a person of her convictions then.
An apology doesn’t equate to an admission of liability Razor but it does point to a concern about the outcome and is a clear attempt to reduce a damages award. By mentioning the apology publicly it allows her to argue if she loses the case that the original alleged defamation didn’t cause too much harm to reputation and so a damages award should be minimal. In the circumstances it is reprehensible conduct by Butler and I hope the judge sees through her sham apology.
JOH
I accept that you are a poor lawyer. You said so on an earlier thread this morning.
As for this case, the so-called apology has not been accepted and the case is going to court. Follow it closely, you might learn something. In the meantime, read her response carefully, it is most enlightening.
Yup. I havent been following that story but JOH is correct about defamation and apologies.
The way I read the article, she didn’t seem at all genuine. Those kids have been through a lot of crap – the case should have been thrown out long ago. If I was one of them I’d be after my pound of flesh and happy to see her in court I’m afraid
It would seem that Butler’s attempt at conciliation has not been successful. Up to the court to decide.
Hang on, aren’t some of you the “you should be able to offend who you like” crowd? If so then complaining about butler doing it (im assuming that – I don’t know what she is supposed to have said) seems a bit hypocritical.
So i assume razor, yvonne and Simont all support section 18c and 18d as drafted now.
Darren, the matter regarding Butler is not about being ‘offended’ it is about being defamed. I would have that you, being in the legal profession, would know more about this type of difference than a lay person like I; unless you are being somewhat cute or too clever by half. Anywho, it would seem that both matters will have their day in court. The 18c matter has already been played out. On that matter, Butler was either ignorant or wilfully ignored the courts finding. I don’t think anyone has said that free speech doesn’t come at a cost; the alternative (censorship, or self censorship) also has a price to be paid. Therein lies the nub of the matter.
Nah, Milton. It boils down to the same thing – being defamed basically means youve been offended about what someone said to you. Its a distinction without a difference (and bear in mind that I believe in restrictions on “free” speech – just not restrictions that go too farm which is what our defamation laws do. Unlike 18c our defamation laws, in their current form, serve no proper social purpose and are riddled with holes.
But dont worry, I get it. When you guys rail against restrictions on free speech what you really mean is you dont like it when someone restricts YOUR freedom to offend someone. If someone says something and you dont like them then youre pretty okay with it if THEY get sued and THEIR freedom of speech gets restricted.
SimonT – I didnt say this was an 18c case. Its defamation. I was just pointing out that some people here bang on about how 18c restricts freedom of speech and, when a defamation case comes up, theyre perfectly ok with it, even though defamation has a far worse effect on restricting freedom of speech and the defamation laws serve no social purpose in their current form (I am for a more restricted defamation law and for laws that would hit someone doing things like cyber harassment etc – that is putting stuff on the internet that is not true or that is not a matter of public interest that is intended, or has the effect, of damaging someones ability to earn an income.
As for causing “offence” how about this little baby:
“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person uses a carriage service; and
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or
the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable
persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances,
menacing, harassing OR OFFENSIVE. ”
(my emphasis).
Carriage service by the way includes the internet.
That is 474.17 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 and its an offence thats committed daily on a huge number of blogs etc, including, Im afraid to say, probably on here. But I dont see anyone too perturbed about it, mostly because its one of those offences that the authorities dont really bother enforcing (which raises the old jurisprudence question; “what is law?” Is it what is on a piece of paper like this, or is it what we do? This has, from memory a jail term of up to 2 or 3 years term attached to it, making it far more dangerous than 18c – by a mexican mile. Whats that sound? Conservative silence. Yeah, you guys are real warriors for the free speech cause.
Anyway, Ill cut it short and let you guys think about that.
ps 474.17 is a Howard government law.
Darren – completely illogical. It is obvious that I am not proposing that Butler be investigated, prosecuted or sued for offending the student based on race (which is what would be required for your comment to have any merit). Her statement on Q&A was absolutely disgraceful – she hasn’t meaningfully retracted it and the law of tort is more than adequate to deal with the matter so long as the student has the means or pro bono support to take her on. Anyone with a modicum of legal understanding or even just plain common sense would recognise that Butler’s comments are not an 18C issue.
For what it is worth I am not sure about amending 18C to remove reference to causing offence. There are arguments both ways. The big problem is how the HRC is using its powers. If the HRC went back to operating the way it used to with a high bar before initiating conciliation and exercising its power to quickly dismiss claims without merit the benefits of 18C might once again outweigh the harm.
Simont I thought I replied to this before. Your post suggests you are highly confused about what I actually said.
Dismayed (9.06pm Sat) – That conversation string was getting too long and way-back, so just refreshing with a new comment.
I take your point about yo-yoing, although I would have thought that might be a much more rapid process. I’ve only read it before relating to people going on very extreme diets, losing weight very fast and then picking it up again as quickly, if not more so. On my start-of-year regime I lose just over a kilo a week for about twelve weeks and then it takes the rest of the year to put it back on again. I don’t think my body is reacting very drastically to what I’m doing so I don’t accept that it’s unhealthy. I prefer to think that spending a quarter of the year clean and healthy and then slowly undoing the good work is better than what I was doing before – which was just being permanently over-weight.
Could I do a better job; maybe moderate things out over the year to obtain a more permanent good physical condition? Yes, I could if I had a different sort of temperament. But lifestyle wise I tend to be either ‘off’ or dialled up to 11. Moderation is something I struggle with.
Speech of Senator John F. Kennedy, Cincinnati, Ohio, Democratic Dinner
October 6, – Fidel Castro – http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25660
GEORGE MEG:-great journalist but is now VERY smart about how he writes and tweets. Not game to favour the right or the left like many of his colleagues do as he is mainly a bookseller , social commentator and film maker now. Also this form of hacking keeps his options open for either a Fairfax or Murdoch gig. Don’t expect ANYTHING startling, controversial or scoopish from our GM.
Heaven forbid someone writes what they want to.
Best you get in touch with GM and tell him he’s upsetting your cut and paste file system by rudely trying to ply his trade
Well there’s no pleasing you is there Bassy?