A Chinese house that was standing somewhat defiantly in the middle of a new main road has finally been demolished. The house’s owner had told the press that he had just finished building the home. Resident Zhang Ling originally said: “They didn’t offer us enough compensation to leave, so we’re staying.”

This is why you should sell

Not anymore. Times like these that whole “red tape” thing doesn’t look too bad.

It’s Monday! What’s on your mind, folks?

Comments on this post close at 8pm AEST.

Most commented


Show oldest | newest first

    • fml says:

      08:12am | 03/12/12

      Some people will believe anything…

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      08:27am | 03/12/12


      you mean they WON’T get welfare? They WON’T get rent assistance? You don’t think that this will lead to a renewed influx of country-shopping freeloaders? 
      I provided a link (yes, I know it was News Corp) how about you do the same if you think I’m wrong?

    • andye says:

      08:32am | 03/12/12

      Riiiiiight. So these homeless people who cannot afford food in Indonesia were following the Australian news? Or perhaps the author of the article gave his own version “hey guys, free money in Australia - what think you?”

      “Free Money? I am in! Hooray for Mr Gillard, the King of Australia!”

      I am not buying this one. The whole thing is fishy.

    • gobsmack says:

      08:49am | 03/12/12

      We should let these people somewhere overseas determine who we vote for in our domestic elections?

    • fml says:

      09:07am | 03/12/12

      No Tony,

      I am saying put a picture of brown people holding their hands up and a brown mother holding an emaciated brown baby and people will believe anything.

      The bridging visa as announced by labor, which allows asylum seekers to be processed in the community allows for a limited form of assistance. That is as far as I know and I am not doubting that.

      I doubt the veracity of this article that those people are asylum seekers and this article is nothing but an “outrage” article. I seriously doubt newscorp sent people all the way out to middle of no where in indonesia to get this “coup”.

    • AdamC says:

      09:11am | 03/12/12

      I do not agree with Labor’s disastrous asylum policies. However, this article epitomises the reason someone long ago brought the words ‘set’ and ‘up’ together.

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:28am | 03/12/12

      since my first comment didn’t make it through Moderation… *grumbles*

      This article got just the reaction it was looking for. Congrats Tony.

      Did you ever stop to think (I know, why do I bother asking), for jsut a second - if these people apaprently can’t afford a blanket at night, baby formula or anything else - how are they getitng their ‘daily news’ of changes in Australian welfare law, entitlements, benefits etc ?/ On their bloody iPads? Cable TV networks on their 40 inch plasmas? Local newspapers in a language they don’t understand?

      Or, were they told this ‘welcome news’ by a journo who just rocked up, told them and got them to pose ‘happy’ before heading back to type up his copy to be submitted before a few beers and curry?

      Nope, no need for a media enquiry in this country, at all.

    • PJ says:

      12:36pm | 03/12/12

      We’re going to need a lot more social housing on our precious farmland after this….. The Herald Sun reported that record numbers of illegal immigrants have crushed Gillard’s Border Controls.

      Despite 85% of illegal immigrants being men, the article managed to interview a woman in Java:

      “If I can get this free money and house when I come to Australia this will make life very easy for me,” Ms Khavari said.

      The Gillard Government may have to resort to the Private Rental market, thereby blowing existing costs of $1.7 Billion out of the water:


      Remember Gillard’s promise in 2010:

      “I am full of understanding of the perspective of the Australian people that they want strong management of our borders and I will provide it.”
      - Julia Gillard, 24th August 2010.

    • Gregg says:

      03:04pm | 03/12/12

      You may not want to believe that there are literally thousands of people either already in the pipeline for or with sights on Australian welfare based on newscorp but maybe you would be an ABC believer and yes Aunty have also been to Indonesia and had an article barely a month or so ago which showed people waiting their time.

      They all did not appear to be doing it too tough and seemed quite a few might have pitched together for renting what looked to be some sort of colonial mini mansion and then they would go out to play soccer together as part of filling their day, all just waiting to hear of the next boat being organised.

    • fml says:

      05:41pm | 03/12/12


      I didnt say there wasnt any body waiting, there obviously is. It is quite possible that this article was intended to incite the pitchfork mob into a frenzied trance. Obviously it has worked.

      Most people who have replied have polar opposite ideas on border control than I have, yet they were able to see it is a poor article.

      If you really want border control strengthened then you should pick better articles than this..

    • ramases says:

      08:07am | 03/12/12

      Once again this Government has shown it shouldn’t be in charge of even an ice cream stand on a sunny day. The illegal immigrant “policy” has once again failed due to the Labor Parties half arsed attempts of copying the Lib/Nats working policy that they so quickly discarded.
        I suppose there is some good news for the Labor Party, at least some people think they are champions, unfortunately its not Australian citizens who will once again be burdened with billions of dollars debt to feed, cloth and support the boat loads we can now expect, great job Gillard, NOT.

    • Null and void says:

      09:28am | 03/12/12

      So ramasses,  here we have Howard’s policies in effect and the boats keep coming.

      So much for Abbott’s “just pick up the phone to the president of Nauru”
      empty words from the empty head of Abbott.

    • Gregg says:

      03:30pm | 03/12/12

      You are certainly lacking in knowing what worked for in effect we do not have Howard’s policies in full, there being no TPVs and they a very essential demotivator.

      And then in dismantling what was working for about seven years, Labour have just opened those flood gates so wide and even further now with welfare offers the time taken to reverse the flow will be many years and would really require new refugee camps of likely well over the hundred thousand mark.

      Yes, refugee camps we should have, just basic establishments to UNHCR standards, perhaps somewhere like the Tiwi Islands being the go.

      And why would the suggestion to talk to Nauru be so empty when that is exactly what Gillard got dragged to eventually by her special committee.
      And still she cannot implement the full program needed.

    • Just say NO says:

      09:01am | 03/12/12

      “Emissions are growing in line with the most extreme climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, according to a paper in the journal Nature Climate Change that explains the Global Carbon Project’s findings.
      The trajectory means a temperature range of between 3.5 and 6.2 degrees by the year 2100, with a “most likely” range of between 4.2 and 5 degrees.
      Although the climate has changed due to natural influences in the past, human emissions superimposed on top of natural variation is now driving change 20 times faster, according to NASA estimates. Civilisation evolved in a more moderate environment.
      The new data is beginning to confirm what scientists had been warning people about for decades, said Andy Pitman, director of the Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of NSW.
      The greenhouse gas emissions path the world is taking “is not a tenable future for the planet – we cannot be that stupid as a species,” he said.”
      I say, it is just the right wing of the conservative parties that are that stupid.

      “Global carbon emissions are growing three times faster than in the 1990s and that could produce a global temperature rise of 4C-6C by 2100, a leading Australian climate scientist says.

      Dr Pep Canadell, one of the lead authors of a new paper warning of the growth of emissions, said their analysis showed that by the end of 2012, global emissions from fossil fuels would reach the unprecedented level of 36 billion tonnes.
      “Just to put this into perspective, this is 58 per cent over 1990 ... and growing about three times faster than they were growing during the 1990s,” he told ABC radio“
      “The United States, Canada and Australia are really the three (countries) that have much bigger emissions per person than any other,” director of the University’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Corinne Le Quere told AAP.

    • Anubis says:

      02:09pm | 03/12/12

      Shame about the inconvenient truth that whilst emissions are growing as predicted that stubborn little critter the temperature refuses to increase. What is it now, 10 years?

      Maybe someone should tell China and India to stop building new coal fired power stations.

    • Davo says:

      02:19pm | 03/12/12

      If you wanted credibility then you shouldn’t have failed to mention that ridiculous analogy about broken ice cubes and the ice caps that has appeared in Punch comments so often recently. Damn those icebreakers to hell. grin

    • iansand says:

      02:22pm | 03/12/12

      Anubis - Can you substantiate this claim (without referring to 1998, or was it 1997).  If you don’t understand the significance of 1998 you should start asking some hard questions of those from whom you get your information, because you are being conned by them.

    • Gregg says:

      03:40pm | 03/12/12

      ” Although the climate has changed due to natural influences in the past, human emissions superimposed on top of natural variation is now driving change 20 times faster, “
      Whether it is 20 times faster or not, just how we get increases to be the responsibility of the right wing of conservative parties is a bit of a stretch seeing as there have been a few leftish governments in power for a few years and then you have India and China from where by far the greatest percentage of global increases comes from and certainly China does not have too many from the right of conservatives heading up their growth plans.

      Population growth and WTO principles to spread wealth to the many poor on earth will continually push even greater population growth and industrialisation and burning of fossil fuels until we have no more.

      I reckon like many species before us we had just better get good at acclimatising and hoping we still get sufficient rainfall from time to time.

    • ramases says:

      04:39pm | 03/12/12

      Add to this that the oceans have not risen the projected metre or so but 11mms in 20 years, damn those pesky natural things for not following the script. More doom and gloom scenarios from people who rely on Government funding to keep going,hmm, might there be a correlation to funding and results, makes one wonder????

    • AdamC says:

      09:03am | 03/12/12

      I thought this was an interesting article about the Bradley Manning case, if only in so far as it gave me something to disagree with:


      To me, it reads like the left wing, anti-American equivalent of an unbalanced talk radio rant.  I agree that Manning appears to have been held under harsh conditions. (Though I understand that the ‘enforced nudity’ referred to in the article was actually an overly-concerned reaction to fears that Manning would somehow kill himself with his pyjamas.) However, this article seems to deliberately misrepresent what Manning actually did.

      For example, the article describes Manning as a ‘whistleblower’ and suggests that the leaking of confidential national security information may be justified. However, Manning was a sworn military officer, a position of trust. In these circumstances, I cannot see that ‘whistleblowing’ is a legitimate defence to breaching confidentiality. (That position would seem to be reflected in US law.)

      Even if you contend that whistleblowing should be permitted, even for national security matters, Manning released lots of information, the release of which could not credibly be considered to be in the public interest. And, given the volumes of stuff released by Manning, it is pretty clear he had not actually made an assessment of the value of each item of information he released.

      To me, Manning seems to be the opposite of a classic whistleblower. A classic whistleblower is someonw who is given particular pieces of information that demand release in the public interest because, for example, it demonstrates high-level corruption. Manning, by contrast, seems to have simply released masses of information hoping that at least some of it winds up evidencing wrongdoing. (As some of it has, to be fair.)

      It seems pretty straightforward to me. I cannot see how anyone can defend Manning’s conduct. Assuming, of course, the allegations against him are demonstrated to be true.

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:59am | 03/12/12


      Bollocks he was.

      Nor is he a “Military Officer’. He’s an OR. General Enlistment. A GI if you like. A ‘Doggie’ in Marine parlance. Jut a soldier to you and me.

      He was pissed off with the military because he thought he deserved better than his current station at the time. He assaulted a fellow soldier - a female, got busted back to PFC. He’d already thrown up warning flags in the ‘system’ and was set to be punted during basic but they let him through due to manpower needs.

      Whistleblower my arse. Brad Manning stole information to make Brad Manning seem important and make himself feel better. And that Idiot Albino has been getitng roots, room and board and fame out of it ever since.

    • simonfromLakemba says:

      01:05pm | 03/12/12

      Even the lefty anti-government in me can’t support Manning. As you have TRD have basically said what he did was far from watergate and deserves what he gets.

      Assange at least releases things of more substance.

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:35pm | 03/12/12

      I do love the -re-inventing’ of poor old Bradley Manning that sections of the media, the internet and especially Wikipedia is getting away with.

      No doubt he’ll be the first transgendered saint in a few years….

    • Stephen T says:

      09:21am | 03/12/12

      “What you have to do is put this into the context of what Ms Gillard is accused of doing.  I don’t think you can.”

      Seeing as how you seem to have adopted an ostrich defence for your stance and a seemed incapacity to advance a counter argument I ‘ll present a hypothetical for you.

      Firstly I’d like you to bear in mind that F’s case was dismissed on the direction of the judge to the jury at the end of the Crown case on the basis that F’s knowledge of the unlawful purpose was not sufficient to found a lawful conviction.

      So to the case, a law firm has two clients A & B, client A has a representative role with client B.  Client A has attempted to incorporate an association however the regulatory authority has rejected the application, a lawyer representing the firm is engaged by client A to provide advice.

      The lawyer acting for client A not only provides advice by intercedes with the regulatory body purporting to represent client’s A and B, the Lawyer used the name and bona fides of their employer and client B to misrepresent the purpose of the association to the regulatory body and then fails to inform client B the principal client whose identity was used in the transaction that an association has been registered in their name. 

      When asked why they didn’t send a copy of the required client B Executive Resolution with the application to the Commission for Corporate Affairs the lawyer specifically said:
      “I was already acting for the AWU via client A and therefore I didn’t need to inform the client B Executive”.

      When legal representatives of client B discover the deception and attempt to initiate action the lawyer lodges a writ of defamation that effectively gags those representatives.  That the lawyer was aware that an offence had been committed is demonstrated by the fact that at a later date they were instrumental in filing the defamation writ in the Supreme Court effectively gagging representatives of client B who were trying to disclose the fraudulent activities.

      Now to deal with the only counter point that you have presented
      “But my attempts to track the quote down reveal one thing - it is a brainless repetition from other people’s blogs.”

      I would posit the argument that you have very little to substantiate your own opinion, and judging by your contributions thus far I give little credence to your ability to actually research any such evidence, all that you offer is a pathetic attempt at obscurification and mindless denial.

    • gobsmack says:

      09:53am | 03/12/12


      @Stephen T

      When you finish your law degree you might get a chance to try out these sorts of arguments in court.

      In the meantime, this dead horse has been well and truly flogged.  Give it a rest.

    • Stephen T says:

      10:19am | 03/12/12

      @gobsmack: I think I may be somewhat qualified, although evidently not as qualified as some of distinguished legal minds evidenced by my fellow bloggers on the Punch, not to worry though I would consider that my Doctorate in Forensic Law may be adequate to argue in a blog. 

      “In the meantime, this dead horse has been well and truly flogged.”

      I would suggest it is by no means dead, though there are those your self included that may wish it was.

    • iansand says:

      10:26am | 03/12/12

      Actually, StephenT, it is you who are not substantiating anything.  When you understand the degree of involvement necessary to inculpate a lawyer in a crime committed by its client I will start taking notice.  But I do admire that nice handful of straws you are clutching.

    • iansand says:

      10:57am | 03/12/12

      What’s a Doctorate in Forensic Law (apart from a tautology)?

    • Stephen T says:

      11:41am | 03/12/12

      @iansand: lol, I understand full well, evidently more than what you. Out of courtesy I presented an argument, which you may or may not refute.  You would make a good Labor party advocate, although I doubt your capacity to be a good lawyer, obdurate to the end.

      Enjoy your day, while it lasts.

    • vox says:

      11:45am | 03/12/12

      Stephen T, who has a Doctorate in Forensic Law, (that’s so amazing!), apparently didn’t turn up on the day when the class was told that the threat of a defamation writ against someone who has defamed no-one is not enough to “stall” any further action by the supposed “defamer”.
      If they, or he/she had not defamed anyone why would they be “stalled”?
      Or perhaps you think that the writ was issued by the Supreme Court acting as a co-conspirator?
      I reckon you got your “Doctorate” at the East Broken Hill Chamber of the Country Women’s Association. For doctoring the facts!

    • Stephen T says:

      12:02pm | 03/12/12

      @vox: I will gather my facts and present my case, until then I will leave you with the wisdom of a very old friend of mine to quote “when I want the pig to grunt I will rattle the bucket” it seems applicable in respect to your dialogue.

    • vox says:

      12:20pm | 03/12/12

      Stephen T, I don’t really think that I expected you to agree with my argument re your lack of qualifications, common sense, intellect etc, etc, but I’m glad you did. And that marvellous instruction you gave me, that if you wanted the pig to grunt you’d rattle the bucket.
      You must be a whiz in the courtroom, (your own bedroom), in front of the jury, (your mirror), reading from the “Boy’s Own” about your legally dazzling derring do.
      The horse, as the man said, is dead. Go flog something else.

    • iansand says:

      12:30pm | 03/12/12

      I see yer problem, StephenT.  You don’t know how to “present a case”.

      What you have to do is list what you claim Ms Gillard has done and link it up with your categories of claimed criminal conduct.  Or even some lapse in the standards expected of a lawyer, or something outside usual legal practice.

    • AdamC says:

      12:38pm | 03/12/12

      Stephen T, I commented on this over the weekend. The underlying issue is that, as it stands, I do not believe there is enough evidence to demonstrate that Gillard actually lied (why mince words) to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission.  The naming of the fund, whilst strange, is not really enough to hang Julia.

      In part, this is because the PM, after stonewalling on the existence of the WA letter, is now stonewalling on the contents of the letter. As Peter Costello opined over the weekend, some voters might have expected their national leader to be a bit more co-operative about getting to the bottom of the issue. He pondered whether she may have a copy of the letter, for example, or now recalled the contents of the letter. Fat chance of that happening, of course.

      I also explained, in the weekend open thread, why I do not believe Gillard will be able to wriggle out of this were it demonstrated that she misled WA officials. (Some Punchers claimed that she could do so on the basis of a client instruction, for example.)

    • Stephen T says:

      01:19pm | 03/12/12

      @vox: Actually it used to go over a treat at the Organisers meetings I used to attend at the Newcastle Trades Hall Council , Jack Kidd was the head at that time and used it to effect on several occasions, in your case it sprung to mind immediately and I believe that it is particular apt considering that you didn’t provide an argument, and still haven’t.

      @iansand: “What you have to do is list what you claim Ms Gillard has done and link it up with your categories of claimed criminal conduct. Or even some lapse in the standards expected of a lawyer, or something outside usual legal practice.”

      I presented a hypothetical, in this instance you are the one raising the mantle of criminal conduct, the points that were presented are on Public Record, as to the problem of linking the outcomes to the conduct I believe that there have been several determinations by the Board of Ethics that could prove detrimental to your argument, you will need to look them up if you wish to post a rejoinder as they are not on Google. 

      In seriousness Ian with due deference to your views on the subject I believe that it goes considerably beyond a lapse in standards and pending one precondition I believe that the situation for the present incumbent could be tenuous.

    • hammy says:

      01:49pm | 03/12/12

      What’s your legal qualifications iansand and vox?

    • iansand says:

      01:57pm | 03/12/12

      I see yer problem, StephenT.  You are confusing your hypothetical with the real world.

    • Stephen T says:

      02:19pm | 03/12/12

      @iansand: You can be exasperating, if you can not reason the difference between a hypothetical premise and a brief I see no hope for you, also based on you responses you have demonstrated at best a notional understanding of ethics; I would remind you yet again that “In fulfilling this role, lawyers are not obliged to serve the client’s interests alone, if to do so would conflict with the duty which lawyers owe to the Court and to serving the ends of justice.” If you actually take the time to read the references provided to you on the Week End Punch you will find that the determinations that I referred to indicates the very fine line over which it is easy to fall in assisting a client’s fraudulent activity, as such a lawyer does not need to be actively assisting or to be getting a direct benefit to incur a liability.

    • iansand says:

      02:31pm | 03/12/12

      hammy - I are one, although no longer in private practice.  Although my qualifications make no difference to the inability of StephenT to make sense.

    • Stephen T says:

      02:38pm | 03/12/12

      @iansand: You can be exasperating, if you can not reason the difference between a hypothetical premise and a brief I see no hope for you, also based on you responses you have demonstrated at best a notional understanding of ethics; I would remind you yet again that “In fulfilling this role, lawyers are not obliged to serve the client’s interests alone, if to do so would conflict with the duty which lawyers owe to the Court and to serving the ends of justice.” If you actually take the time to read the references provided to you on the Week End Punch you will find that the determinations that I referred to indicates the very fine line over which it is easy to fall in assisting a client’s fraudulent activity, as such a lawyer does not need to be actively assisting or to be getting a direct benefit to incur a liability.

      @hammy: They are both partisan and it appears that it would be detrimental to their particular views to enter a debate on ethics or subjecting thee actions of an individual to scrutiny or accountability.  I’d given Ian more credit than he perhaps deserved the only riposte he seems capable off is the standard lawyers defence when they are in trouble, discuss nothing, admit nothing,  create nothing which the opposition can use to their advantage.  Vox is just a hack; still if he had an opinion other than party script it would have been good.
      Any way neither is worth the effort to pursue at the present time.

      Have a good day all, be well. smile

    • iansand says:

      04:02pm | 03/12/12

      What?  Infuriated because I won’t get involved in your hypothetical? I prefer to invent my own hypotheticals, thank you very much.  This is not the Matrix, and I am not playing in someone else’s hypotheticals.

      If a hypothetical is all you’ve got you’ve got nothing.  Reliance on hypotheticals is an admission that you have lost the real argument.  Lawyers can be liable for things done in concert with clients, but what Ms Gillard did is not within a bull’s roar of that.

    • PJ says:

      04:27pm | 03/12/12

      Who do you think took the WA Corporate Commission File, which would have contained much of the information that the Slater and Gordon File would have done, had Julia Gillard opened one.

      You realise that in doing a favour for Blewett and Wilson, by not opening a File at Slater and Gordon, that made everything else possible.

      Not opening the File was the building block, the stepping stone to the great fraud of $1 million dollars.

      The AWU Scandal is without doubt the crime of the century. $1 million gone, no charges, no arrests, no trace.

      So it beggars belief, that the media would be following the push to get the ideas out there that this should be dropped, again. Because we are bored. Because there is no evidence. Because it is a smear campaign.

      It’s no smear campaign. That implies digging something up and misconstruing it in someway.

      We’ve got no file at Slater and Gordon. A File gone in WA and two blokes who’ve got all the answers walking about the place.

      If smear exists, then it’s the counter push to close the case, again. Not the push for answers to questions.

      Who needs evidence to ask a question in Parliament?

    • Gordon says:

      05:58pm | 03/12/12

      Came late to this thread. Googled, “Doctorate of Forensic Law”. As suspected, it doesn’t exist, perhaps explaining its bearers love of hypotheticals.

    • iansand says:

      06:56pm | 03/12/12

      I don’t know if those things happened or, if they did, who was responsible.

      But nor do you, Mr Abbott, Ms Bishop, StephenT, Larry Pickering or any of the other madfolk.

    • subotic ruined my life says:

      09:40am | 03/12/12

      According to the Futurama Calendar, the Prince of Darkness, Ozzy Osbourne, was born on this day back in 1948.

      I know I’ll be spinning a copy of the Paranoid album here at work to annoy the locals today.

      And if I find a dove or bat close by… LOOK OUT!!!

    • Ohcomeon says:

      12:17pm | 03/12/12

      All Aboard!!!

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      09:52am | 03/12/12

      Why do our politicians believe that if the say something often enough everyone will believe them? Do they really think that we are as apathetic, naive as we were until Gough Whitlam began his ridiculous Loans Affair nonsense?
      “Iraq HAS Weapons of Mass Destruction”
      That was Howard & Downer’s mantra as they took us into the USA’s illegal invasion of Iraq.
      They lied. (Sound familiar?)
      “I did nothing wrong”
      That little phrase has been repeated so ften it is simply assumed the utterer of it is LYING
      “There will never, ever be a GST under ANY Liberal Government”
      An oft-repeated LIE
      “There will never be a Carbon Tax under ANY (ALP) Government I lead”.
      Another, equally oft-repeated, LIE
      If our politicians are, as they now claim, so concerned about the now total lack of respect for our Parliaments, our almost universal distrust & loathing of themselves then they should take a good long hard look in one of the many mirrors they spend their time preening in front of. The answer will be looking back at you.
      Without exception you are all responsible. Your behaviour has been abysmal. You have, without exception, demonstrated that you are only in it for yourselves, the money & perks you get out of it.
      Australia & it’s people (you ARE supposed to be working FOR us not just yourselves) have become of little consequence.
      Have a wonderful holiday. We will for we won’t have to put up with your lies & distortions for almost three wonderful months.

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:02am | 03/12/12

      Bob, its not a lie if its ‘never written down’ or ‘said in the heat of battle’ or if its a ‘non-core promise’ or even ‘aspirational’.

      Otherwise - ‘shit happens’ wink

    • Chris L says:

      11:12am | 03/12/12

      Agreed - but unless we’re ready to accept another hung parliament or two there seems to be no reason for either of the major parties to lift their game.

      I reckon the minor parties are the way to go. Put the fear of the electorate into the majors.

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:55am | 03/12/12

      Not going to happen Chris - Independants are fringe nutters don’t you know? Voting for them is just ‘throwing away your vote’.

      Viable non fringe nutter third party? Yeah, love to see that….

    • Chris L says:

      02:20pm | 03/12/12

      @TRD - I can’t agree with you there. I’ve had a look at the Democratic Liberal Party, the Sex Party and the Australian Secular Party and they each manage to impress me.

      Maybe I’m too fringe to realise the parties I like are fringe….

    • AdamC says:

      10:00am | 03/12/12

      Over at news.com.au, they are running the regular, Rudd and Turnbull comeback article:


      Sadly, the media is the only constituency for the Rudd/Turbull for PM campaign. There is no way either of these fellows is coming back to lead their parties in the near term.

      Even if the denizens of Faceless HQ decide that Julia is terminally mishandling AWU-Gate, they cannot bring back Rudd. They have spent two years viciously sledging and underming their former Messiah. They would need to draft Shorten or Combet instead.

      Likewise, if Labor manage to turn the polls around, as they were threatening to do a couple of months ago, Coalition MPs may consider changing leader. However, Turnbull’s position on a carbon tax, and his previous failure to gain traction as opposition leader, suggests Joe Hockey would replace Abbott. (Though Turnbull is more likely than Rudd to do a Lazarus. He is very smart, charismatic guy.)

      Why does the media persist with these silly stories?

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:03am | 03/12/12

      Ahh Limited News - where we try to make the news - not report it!

    • hammy says:

      04:27pm | 03/12/12

      You realise the Punch writers are the News Limited writers?

    • PJ says:

      10:45am | 03/12/12


      Referring to Swan’s article, You are so right.

      The Gillard government has sneakily lifted Australia’s debt ceiling without debate, and with an appalling lack of transparency.

      In only Four years, the Labor government has lifted the debt ceiling four times. First it said it only needed $75 billion, then in quietly arranged $200 billion, followed by $250 billion and now it’s $300 billion.

      Every time Swan did this without discussion or consultation. He did see fit to apologise each time and on each occasion VOW it would be the last loan increase. Of course we’ve become used to broken promises since 2010. And Gillard Government supporters do not even notice them.

      In four years Labor has produced four of the biggest Budget deficits ever, totalling $174 billion.

      The Gillard Government is spending around $100 billion a year more than in the last Howard-Costello budget.

      The Gillard Government is spending Money we cannot afford with a GDP declining under Carbon taxes and MRRT and a Mining boom that’s upping sticks and heading to Africa, where Mining is 40% cheaper at least and productivity is high.

      The Gillard Governments net debt projection for this current financial year has blown out from $106.6 billion to $142.5billion. Thats a deterioration of 35%.

      Net debt is forecast to rise next year and the year after to a new peak of $145 billion, the highest ever. The Interest we will pay will rise to $8.2 Billion a year and each day Australians will be paying $22 Million in interest only.

      So even if Swan’s miniscule surplus were achieved as promised for 2012-2013, it will still take 113 years to pay off the $174 billion of deficits Labor has delivered for Australians in just four years.

      Four more years? Surely we realise we just cannot afford the Gillard Government?

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:04am | 03/12/12

      and you didn’t reply to it in the article you are discussing because…..

    • bailey says:

      11:21am | 03/12/12

      Come onbabble-on
      Go large
      13.4 trillion in debt that would take us 2.3 light years to pay off.
      If you are going to make up numbers, go very large.

      You have no credibility around here.

    • PJ says:

      11:22am | 03/12/12

      ....... the Punch wouldn’t post it there

    • TimB says:

      11:56am | 03/12/12

      ‘2.3 light years to pay off. If you are going to make up numbers, go very large.’

      If this was coming from anyone else but another of Badger’s alter-ego’s,  I’d give them the benefit of the doubt.

      But I can easily believe that Badger doesn’t actually realise that a light year is a measure of distance, not time.

    • fml says:

      12:18pm | 03/12/12


      Serious question,

      Stating labor’s debt is all good and well, but if abbot does get in next election, how is he going to reduce the debt and pay for all the promises he has made?

    • PJ says:

      12:53pm | 03/12/12


      Ironically, Abbott is going to have to dismantle the payments to ‘Going well’ families. Middle Class Welfare as you call it. Vote buying, anti democratic tactics as I call it.

      By revoking the Carbon tax there wont be any need to compensate 70% of Australian households.

      By revoking the Carbon tax there wont be any need for protection monies for Industry sectors.

      By scrapping the 30% tax on mining the investors will return and we will have the Olympic Dam $30 Billion project and The Chevron $100 Billion Projects back on track. We’ll ensure new investment comes to Australia again and not Africa.

      Repealing the ‘Retrospective tax’, which back dates to 2004 to grab money from current investors, will ensure current projects get extensions.

      It’s always difficult for conservative Governments to clean up a Socialist spending frenzy, but as you see from my off the cuff above, not impossible.

      The important thing is that the Gillard Government is removed from power and influence so the clean up can go forward unhindered.

      I just cannot see how Australia will be able to afford another 4 years of this Government and it’s economic policy.

      I have research all the figures. But there are some here, whose stock reply is insults, who will never accept the facts.

      But you know fml, with your UK Labour background, that I will survive better in a Socialist Left scuzz-muzzle, than many others here. Do you not? Ironic.

    • PJ says:

      12:57pm | 03/12/12

      How soon do you calculate the Gillard Government will pay off $174 billion deficits it has given us Australians in just four years.

      My research says 113 years.

      What do you say, my little Gillardites?

    • PsychoHyena says:

      01:10pm | 03/12/12

      @TimB, but 2.3 years sounds like such a pleasant amount of time to pay of 13.4 trillion in debt.

      @PJ, out of curiosity, which version of billion are you using? US or British?

    • TimmyJB says:

      01:39pm | 03/12/12

      For those above, a light year is a unit of distance, not time…

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:52pm | 03/12/12

      So he’s going to cut the ‘Middle Class Welfare’ his party enacted and dismantle a tax that brings in no money at all because of offsets agaisnt state mining taxes (that have been raised by coalition governments in those states)

      So nothing useful then?

    • Chris L says:

      02:25pm | 03/12/12

      @TimB - No worse than making the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs.

    • Tim says:

      02:38pm | 03/12/12

      Only Babble on could think the government would raise extra revenue by dismantling taxes and increasing welfare payments to well off families (extended maternity leave).

    • TimB says:

      05:16pm | 03/12/12

      @ ChrisL, they retconned that though. The Falcon was fast enough that Solo was able to skim closer to a black hole cluster than most starships, thus shortening the distance travelled on the Kessel Run to under 12 parsecs wink (which of course resulted in the attendant time record too).

    • sami says:

      02:53pm | 03/12/12

      Man it takes a lot of scrolling to get through the political posts and find something different on the open threads! Doesn’t it get boring having the same argument every day? Ah well, whatever floats your goat, as they say.

      “What’s on your mind, folks?”
      Well I am tired after my busy weekend, so tonight I am getting take away for dinner and then taste testing the tropical icy poles I made last night. I suspect that they will be magnificent smile bonus: slightly cheaper and slightly healthier than store ones, plus they take approx 30 seconds to make.
      Living the dream.


Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more



Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter