Punch on: Open thread 13/10/2011

jay-ded says:

06:55am | 13/10/11

You have to admit, it looks like a very well thought out labor long term plan…..

Rudd gets voted in by the public.  Gets stabbed in the back and Gillard replaces him.  Gillard gets the carbon tax pushed through the senate.  When we go to the polls, whatcha wanna bet that Rudd replaces Gillard and labor gets voted back in again.

If it wasn’t such a brilliant plan, I’d cry.  As it is, I’m just pissed off instead. So much for democracy in Australia.

nossy says:

08:24am | 13/10/11

@jay-ded   almost exactly the same scenario I blogged yesterday jay-ded - very possible - the problem with the Liberals is that Abbott personally is not trusted - the moment the ALP put up a popular leader the Coalition will be fighting with back to the wall - forget the current polls as they only reflect discontent with Gillard - things change very quickly. Look at yesterday with Mirrabella beiing suspended from the Parliament for 24 hours - if the Coalition had needed her vote to make a difference she would not have been there. We have a few twists and turns to go yet before anything is crystal clear.

MikeS says:

09:37am | 13/10/11

You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inigo Montoya says:

01:38pm | 13/10/11

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

Dani says:

08:40am | 13/10/11

Space Hoppers

Trevor says:

08:45am | 13/10/11

Zorb

Mahhrat says:

09:24am | 13/10/11

Superball?

I dunno about unpopular though - my dog has one the size of a tennis ball, and she has brilliant fun chasing the damn thing all over the place.

acotrel says:

06:25am | 13/10/11

@S.L.
Try a post 2007 Mazda 6 with the six speed manual box, if you live somewhere where there are some windey roads. They are almost as enjoyable as a motorcycle !

jay-ded says:

06:57am | 13/10/11

“Luck”  SL.  You do know that most of the body parts of both holden and ford come from Europe anway?  At least spare parts are cheaper

S.L says:

07:07am | 13/10/11

Thanks for the tip acotrel. I suppose it IS a midlife crisis when for performance I can’t see past a V8. Should I grow up? NAAAAAH!!!!!!!

acotrel says:

07:49am | 13/10/11

@SL
V8s are OK, but if you watch them on a race circuit and compare them with a 2.5 litre touring car, the cost per unit excitement isn’t worth it.  A porsche is a much better go !

acotrel says:

07:56am | 13/10/11

The kids seem to like those Nissan Skyline Turbos these days.  Cost a bout the same as a V8 Commodore to run, but why would you bother ?  Mr Plod would just love to grab your licence off you ! If you get onto the windey stuff, you are more likely to get way with a bit of exciting driving without getting too much over the speed limit. There’s not much value in speeding down long straight roads.  It’s the reason I circuit race a motorcycle, doing that stuff on the public roads is a way to get off the planet in a box.

S.L says:

08:09am | 13/10/11

@jay-ded. Errrrr since when did that happen? I don’t think so! If the big 2 were going to import that stuff they’d look to S/E Asia before Europe!

Anubis says:

08:14am | 13/10/11

@ SL - If you have need for a ute try one of the crew cab utes - gives you room/seats for the kids

fairsfair says:

08:27am | 13/10/11

XR5/Focus RS! Best of both worlds. Oh how I can’t wait until I can afford it….

S.L says:

09:02am | 13/10/11

@acotrel I’m one of your ilk. But had a major “off” when I was 20 so my bike riding and manual driving days are long gone thanks to a partially paralized left arm. I drag raced up until 3 years ago (and I still own the drag car) but priorities change. Skylines? Nice cars but yes a passing policeman would pull me up to see where the P plates are. I think I’ll suss the salesmen today and see how I go.

Mahhrat says:

09:27am | 13/10/11

I bought a car last year - a ‘98 AU Falcon with only 155000ks on it.

Best thing I ever bought.  Paid $3000 cash, and that included four new feet, a service and six month’s rego.

I don’t get why you’d spend more than that, unless it’s for business.  With the 20 grand I didn’t spend, I could buy 6 more of those cars. 

Guarantee seven falcons, each about a dozen years old, will last longer than anything new.

S.L says:

10:02am | 13/10/11

@Mahrat I hate people that continually try to top others so I’ll appologize first. I currently drive an AU with 860,000ks on the clock (ex cab). I’m selling it to my nieces boyfriend so he has a cheap commuter (LPG). I regularly buy vehicles from “ex fleet” sales yards for my business as they only have around 40,000ks before they’re offloaded. As I’m getting older I want to get more comfortable! A Calais or G6? Better check my bank balance first!

fairsfair says:

11:36am | 13/10/11

What about an XR6 Turbo? My brother had one of those once and it went better than the XR8 ute he previously owned. You avoid the higher insurance, rego and petrol then… just a thought….

Keep in mind though, if you kid are approaching learning age - you can’t teach them to drive (or when they have their Ps lend them your car) in a turboed 6 or V8… just a thought… as you seem to want to keep this one for a long period of time….

TimB says:

12:23pm | 13/10/11

Ooh look at me getting into a car conversation…

Dad had an XR6 Turbo as his company car for a few years. One of those snazzy blue ones. It was roomy, comfortable, and thus awesome. Was sad to see it go.

...Thus ends my paltry contribution

PS. Lancers suck.

Economist says:

01:37pm | 13/10/11

Depending on where you live here’s something for thought. Buy at the Pickles auction in Hobart. You can do it online. Pickles Hobart was far cheaper than any other capital city auctions even when you include transport costs. A lot of Vic dealers also buy there. Registering in Tassie is also initially cheaper and if you have relatives or friends there its easy to temporary garage and for them to inspect.

We saved about $3000 compared to buying the same car at a local auction and $5000 compared with a dealership.

Jade says:

03:21pm | 13/10/11

@ Mahhrat, the only problem with cars like the one you have purchased is the repair costs… or maybe yours hasn’t gotten to the stage that EVERYTHING starts dying yet.

I drive a 1994 Holden Calais and I will be upgrading to either an brand spanka Mazda 3 or a Mazda 6 that is 2 or 3 years old. 

I am over driving an unreliable car!

@S.L Everyone that I know that has driven a Mazda say they are great to drive… unless your bank balance is biiiiig then I would be going for a VE Clubby or Senator (if its really really big)

Elphaba says:

08:07am | 13/10/11

Tramapoline!!  Trapampoline!!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GzQNaaZsh_8/SnruPuy86nI/AAAAAAAAMds/q0lZOR_Pv6M/s400/24.jpg

adam says:

08:39am | 13/10/11

lets go jump on old man Simpsons car instead Elph

TimB says:

08:56am | 13/10/11

It smells funny in there .

TimB says:

09:04am | 13/10/11

Also continuing the Simposons theme, I submit the following as a pictorial answer.

http://images.wikia.com/simpsons/images/2/2f/Springy.gif

In your face Patty and Selma.

Elphaba says:

09:25am | 13/10/11

@TimB

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/54/wooas0.jpg/sr=1

TimB says:

10:25am | 13/10/11

Stupid work filter. Blocking storage media, blah.

Can’t see the image Elphaba. Wild guess, is it Ciggy?

Elphaba says:

11:22am | 13/10/11

@TimB, it was Patty looking mad.

jay-ded says:

08:19am | 13/10/11

Can’t tell you that Ghost, because they will :(

Knemon says:

08:58am | 13/10/11

In a nutshell…clean up their act, pollute less and they pay less, the majority of us will be compensated for what’s passed on, those that aren’t compensated can afford to pay their way. We can no longer just keep on plundering and polluting the planet without having to pay, we’ve had it free for too long, times have changed, get used to it, the sky is not going to fall.

This reminds me so much of the GST debate, before it was implemented; everyone was talking doom and gloom because no-one was sure about how it would operate. Come back to me on 30 June 2013 and tell me how poor you are.

Ghost says:

09:44am | 13/10/11

Knemon,

You are agreeing they will pass the costs on I take it?

If the majority are compensated, then I assume for them it will remain free for ‘plunder’, so what’s the point of that then?  They don’t change their behaviour.

So you are in favour of a system which penalises some people because they work hard I take it?

(I never said the sky is falling, I asked a question)

Poor poor me says:

09:47am | 13/10/11

I make 300,000 dollars a year and this carbon tax will really hurt me.

I have never voted Liberal in my life, but I will next election….

unless Abbott is still the leader, in which case I’ll vote Greens

fairsfair says:

10:24am | 13/10/11

Knemon, I totally get that cleaning up their act will see them pollute less. But when they are ABLE to pass on costs to cover themselves to the customer, why would they embark on massive upheaval and increased costs to their means of production (or whatever it may be) to become “clean”? I appreciate, that they could also pass on the costs of cleaning up their act to the customer, but I think they will take the easy route. Massive restructuring is not just about money - it is an extreme f* around. I think they will pass on the cost of the tax, or more likely, shift offshore where they don’t have to pay the tax and still pass on the costs of the tax because people expect it and they can.

I know its a sceptical view, but thinking that polluting business will do the right thing and shoulder some of the expense is a bit silly. I am all for encouraging them to do the right thing - I just don’t think the Carbon Tax in its current structure is the way to go.

I think you will find that that is the non-hysterical view of most Australians. I am a bit frustrated that my intollerance of the Carbon Tax in its current form is percieved to be some hysterical reaction or an issue of being bankrupted. Essentially I believe I will be paying more tax for nothing. Can I afford it - yes, I’ll have to, most people can, but if I am being taxed more only to get the government out of a financial pickle brought about by their own mismanagement, and not do a thing about pollution/Climate Change/AGW (whatever you want to call it) - I am a bit annoyed.

iansand says:

11:05am | 13/10/11

fairsfair - What if some smart competitor cleaned up THEIR act so they did not have to pass the cost of emissions on?  Cheaper products and services, so bigger market share.  But that would be free market capitalism, and we know how much Mr Abbott and the Deniers hate that stuff.  Much better to have a centrally planned reward system.

Ben C says:

11:27am | 13/10/11

Does anyone know how the Government is going to measure the amount of pollution emitted by any single company? Is it a self-assessment system? How many questions has the Government not answered on this policy?

TimB says:

11:30am | 13/10/11

@ iansand, then that “smart competitor” has had to pay extra to clean up their act instead of paying extra for the tax.

Either way we get slugged.

fairsfair says:

11:59am | 13/10/11

Iansand, isn’t the pure notion of market capitalism that the market determines the price? So if I as a business owner have invested heavily in the development of a carbon neutral product a) I can charge more than my competitors because at the moment it is “niche” market, or perhaps even deemed “superior” due to its green credentials or; b) I can charge the same as my competitors who attract heavier penalties (even if it is cheaper for me to manufacture) because the market determines the price.

I certainly see the points of both sides of the argument. I just don’t see how this tax is structured to ensure that business go green (or even start going green) without either being helped out with incentives from the govt or passing the costs on down the supply chain (or both). The consumer is the one who is going to pay, on top of the personal taxation implications. I just think as it currently stands it (was originally a noble idea) that his now just pie in the sky stuff.

iansand says:

12:06pm | 13/10/11

Slip your third speaker a note about cost/benefit analyses.

Alf says:

12:12pm | 13/10/11

It’s a world gone topsy-turvy.  The bunch of buffoons who are normally the ones who stick in grant schemes are putting in a market mechanism and the ones who normally get very excited about the efficiency of market mechanisms are planning to replace it with a big grant scheme.

TimB says:

12:28pm | 13/10/11

Slip your joke writer a note about coming up with some new material.

iansand says:

01:18pm | 13/10/11

Gosh Timmy - why would I let a good gag die?  Particularly with you as a straight man.  When you stop behaving like a bad year 10 debater I will stop treating you like one.

fairsfair - The problem is that you are looking at this as a tax.  While the initial stage may look like a tax, in the next few years it will become an ETS - a very different critter.  Then whatever you pay for carbon will be another input.  The number of permits will decrease incrementally and there will come a time when increasing efficiency and reducing emissions is the only rational economic decision.

Even as a tax, if you pay less tax you have the option of reducing your prices to become more competitive or maintaining prices and becoming more profitable.  Both are traditional strong capitalist incentives.

Ben C says:

01:19pm | 13/10/11

@ iansand

What makes you think that the ALP prepared a cost/benefit analysis? They refused to do one for what is to be a commercial venture (the NBN), there’s even less chance they’ll do one for the carbon tax.

TimB says:

01:35pm | 13/10/11

That’s it iansand. Keep running from the hard questions with your sad attempts at humor and childish belittlement.

We all know the real reason why you refuse to answer.

PS. “you have the option of reducing your prices to become more competitive or maintaining prices and becoming more profitable.  Both are traditional strong capitalist incentives. “

Both those incentives already exist under the current system,  just FYI.

fairsfair says:

01:42pm | 13/10/11

That is a good point Iansand, but it just brings be back to another criticism. If this is just a temporary tax that will become a valid means of checking carbon outputs:

1) why is the govt pandering to the greens when they have got the majority of the electorate offside in not standing by their own convictions.
2) why bother and not just develop a workable ETS.

Clearly, as I said in my other post - this is an avenue for the govt to remain in government via pacifying the greens and maintaining majority and also recoup vast dollars to ensure they still achieve their lorded surplus before it kicks over to a policy with which they actually believe in.

I just feel it is all smoke and mirrors with far from straight forward intentions, that ultimately don’t have the environment’s wellbeing as its priority.

So you will have to forgive me for thinking it is one giant stinker.

iansand says:

02:02pm | 13/10/11

Ben C (by the way - what is it with nicks that end in capital letters?  They are all semi-literate).  The cost benefit analysis would be done by businesses.

Knemon says:

02:35pm | 13/10/11

@ Ghost - In the first three years some costs will most likely be passed on but you will also be most likely compensated…Once the ETS is up and running we will see an entirely different playing field, many producers and manufacturers who make the effort to become more efficient will actually benefit from the ETS, they will be able to pass these savings onto the consumer, this makes them more competetive than their opposition who sat back and did nothing, simple free market operations will come into
play.

Ben C - Good question. This for me is the only flaw that I Can see, thanks to the unscrupulous so called capitalists that will always take advantage of any situation they can, I believe this is where the EU system was corrupted
(which has now been rectified). We will have a department set-up to
monitor this.

iansand says:

02:54pm | 13/10/11

TimB - The reason I refuse to answer is that you haven’t asked a question.  I’m pretty good at working out sub-literate communication but you defeat me.  It is why Mrs Kafoops has made you 4th speaker.  You can’t do much damage there.

Ben C says:

03:13pm | 13/10/11

@ iansand

There will be plenty of costs, and not many benefits for businesses. Increase in compliance costs, the permits market will be full of day traders. How will this benefit small business, who are generally the last line before the end consumer?

in the end the consumer (you and I) will be screwed, because our wages won’t keep up, our employers can’t afford to pay us more because of increases in their costs, and we will be slaves to big business because small business will no longer exist.

iansand says:

03:21pm | 13/10/11

Ben C - There will come a time when the annual costs of buying permits will exceed the NPV of the cost of reducing emissions.  At that point a rational business will do things to reduce emissions.

Unless the business was run by you and TimB.  God knows what you two would do, but we can be pretty sure it would not be rational.  Maybe you would sacrifice budgerigars to Mr Abbott.

TimB says:

03:28pm | 13/10/11

Knemon, iansand has failed to respond to my point, so now I put it to you instead:

“..many producers and manufacturers who make the effort to become more efficient ...”

Achieving these efficiencies with current green technology will of course create a cost. Yes you’ve avoided a cost of the tax. But you’ve added the cost of the effort to avoid said tax. Given that costs will rise anyway (just theoretically not as much), this means that even with the “green” option, the consumer will still be slugged relative to costs as they stand today. This is not ideal.

Oh and don’t talk about compensation. That only applies to some people and quite quickly becomes irrelevant even to those people as the carbon price rises. The only thing the compensation does is redistribute the tax burden.

So again, please explain how price rises across the board in return for negligible environmental impact is actually a good idea.

PS. “We will have a department set-up to monitor this. “

Oh goody. Well now I’m sold. Who doesn’t trust the Government to deal effectively with fraud?

fairsfair says:

03:43pm | 13/10/11

Woeful.

This started out as a genuine discussion, and it was interesting.

I get that you have differing opinions on the matter, and I totally respect that - but I wish you would grow the f* up and leave the childish arguing behind.

Every single one of you in other arenas have interesting points to make and are coherent - the above is just sad.

(... and yes I am sorry I am having a bad day, but far call boys - its getting old).

TimB says:

03:53pm | 13/10/11

“At that point a rational business will do things to reduce emissions.”

And again, as I said it is at this point the consumers get slugged with green costs instead of tax costs. You still haven’t explained why this is ideal (this was the implied question in my previous statment, I’m sorry if it was too subtle for you. Note to self:- Use simple english when dealing with Iansand). This is the issue you have failed to address.

Cost of product X made with’carbon’ processes prior to tax: $100
Cost of product X made with ‘green’ processes: $110
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tax levied to artificially distort market
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cost of product X made with’carbon’ processes *with*tax: $111

“Great!” says iansand. ‘I’ll go buy that cheaper product!’

Except you’re now spending an extra $10 on what you would have paid. Brilliant. /sarc.

Again don’t bring up the ‘compensation’. The way the compensation is handed out to only some people combined with the ever rising tax renders the argument moot.

I’m guessing that the iansand business model consists of setting fire to his competitors premises because he’s too untalented to make a go of his own business. Sure he might capture the market after, but the market no longer has access to the better product.

If green tech cannot stand on it’s own, it should fail. If you want it to succeed make it better. That’s how a REAL business works.

Shane From Melbourne says:

04:28pm | 13/10/11

@TimB- It depends upon whether you believe that pollution is an “Externality” or not. In traditional economic theory pollution is an externality passed on to government. In theory under carbon tax or ETS the price of a good would reflect the true cost of producing the good ( whether the producer absorbs the true cost or passes it on the consumer is irrelevant for the purposes of the model ). In your example posted above the true cost of product X might be $120, the $100 cost incurred in actual production costs and $20 to clean up the pollution, in which case product X produced with green processes would have a competitive advantage with no distortion of market processes

TimB says:

05:15pm | 13/10/11

Fairs I’m sorry, I’m all for a mature discussion, but when a perfectly legitimate post is responded to with ‘Slip your third speaker…blah blah blah’ , it’s clear that iansand is not interested in being mature. Any time he decides otherwise, I’m fully happy to oblige.

@ Shane, that’s all well and good- IF I buy the argument that CO2 is ‘pollution’ and actually has some sort of cost.  If that’s the case the same logic would see us ponying up the dough every time we breathe out.
The other fact that to consider is that this’cost’ seems to range from as low as a few cents on some exchanges to $23 under our scheme and in theory evenmore expensive in future. This shows that the ‘cost’ you speak of is entirely artificial and arbitrary and does not actually reflect any sort of *actual* measurable external cost. 

Look, at the end of the day, we’re dealing with an overly convoluted money-go round which may or may not reduce Australia’s paltry CO2 emissions by a mere 5%. And to administer that we’re going to be spending a crapton of cash on the associated bureaucracy . And this doesn’t even take into account the almost certain fraud.

By any reasonable measure, the whole scheme is insane. Moreso when you consider how pointless it will be when the US China, India etc completely ignore our so-called lead.

iansand says:

05:41pm | 13/10/11

Shane - I have made that point to TimB many times.  He can’t grasp it.  It’s why I don’t really bother with him much.  He sees things in purely party political terms, and that’s that.

anon says:

12:07am | 14/10/11

iansand
agreed - too myopic.
much like dash joan atm
waste of time

Elphaba says:

08:32am | 13/10/11

Yes.  Fitness takes time, just keep at it.

sally says:

10:40am | 13/10/11

Didn’t mum tell you that you could do anything you put yourself to?

fairsfair says:

10:41am | 13/10/11

To maturely put it Elph… I don’t wanna!

I want the results, without the work. Damn this bad attitude!

Its crazy, because I am actually enjoying it and feeling much better - but I lack the patience for the results. When oh when will I reach that magical stage (which I have briefly been at in the past) where I get annoyed if I can’t exercise.

I also realised yesterday that I am a lazy runner. I scuff my feet. I’d probably manage an extra K if I didn’t. Now I have to learn how to run as I near stacked the treaddie about five times :(

AdamC says:

10:43am | 13/10/11

Of course you can. Just keep at it!

Elphaba says:

10:48am | 13/10/11

@fairs, I know I harp on about it, but you might want to try adding some yoga to your regime.  It’s one of the few exercises that you beging to feel the effects after two or three sessions.  If you did that a couple of times a week, you would notice the increased flexibility and general well-being.

But yes, I totally get what you mean.  The day they invent the sit-on-your-butt-while-eating-hot-chips-and-watch-your-thighs-shrink diet, I am SO there.

TimB says:

11:08am | 13/10/11

I’m already on that diet Elphaba. ...Well the first part of it anyway . The second bit might be an issue.  Baby steps.

fairsfair says:

11:38am | 13/10/11

You might be on to something green one… when I was at my fittest I was also doing Bikram Yoga once a week. Might crack out the Denise Austin Yoga video on the weekend…. we’ll see if she makes a difference!

Elphaba says:

12:00pm | 13/10/11

@fairs, I haven’t heard of that vid, is it a good one?

I’ve got a 45 min one I do which I like.  I’m aiming for 5 sessions this week.

fairsfair says:

01:15pm | 13/10/11

I haven’t touched it in a couple years.

It is this one http://deniseaustin.shop.sportstoday.com/Product.aspx?cp=11491_11998&pc=3NAM06DVD

But I do recall it being quite difficult and that was straight after I was being complimented on my “skills” from my Bikram teacher and probably at a weight where I would have achieved a yoga body in 21 days. Nowhere near as hard as Bikram, but still a challenge.

The Bikram place I attended used to have 30/60/90 day challenges where you were required to do the routine every day for that time. I watched an overweight woman go from average to knock out bod in the 90 days. Sadly, at $20 a session - I didn’t feel I had $1800 or the 90 mins free before work to acheive it.

God I wish I was rich and could quit work now and spend my days training….

Elphaba says:

01:38pm | 13/10/11

@fairs, tell me about it!  That’s why I’ve opted for the DVDs at home.  The results might be slower, since I’ve got to practice more without an instructor to help lift me into a pose, but it’s way cheaper.

Thanks for that, I’ll check it out.

nossy says:

12:27pm | 13/10/11

@fairsfair   hahahaha I will select “may” FF but hey points for trying - I havnt a clue what Daniels word is so Ii am hopping aboard your word “Kangahopper” if you dont mind?

Ghost says:

11:16am | 13/10/11

Right!

Press the relevant application into their hand and turn them away immediately on the day they arrive!

Adam Diver says:

11:14am | 13/10/11

I am so angry and have no idea who to direct the anger at. All 16 clubs are trying to scuttle the independant commission and I have no idea why. The process seemed locked in over a year ago.

TimB says:

12:04pm | 13/10/11

“The process seemed locked in over a year ago. “

Exactly! I thought it was going to be all sorted at the beginning of *this* year. What a farce.

Nick Pappas of the Rabbitoh’s seems to be the mastermind behind the big demand, but I’m sure there’s at least a few other clubs behind him (even if others are pleading ignorance). But he’s the target of my anger for now.

Anubis says:

01:01pm | 13/10/11

@ Adam Diver - be angry at Tony Abbott - apparently every thing that is wrong is a result of Tony Abbott being a wrecker (at least according to the watermelon coalition)

TimB says:

01:26pm | 13/10/11

But Adam, I’m already angry at Julia, Bobo the Green clown, and the three stooges Wilkie, Windsor and Oakeshott.

I’m not sure I have enough anger left over for Tony. How about if I blame John Howard instead? That doesn’t take as much effort to justify.

TimB says:

01:30pm | 13/10/11

Augh , sorry that last comment should be directed at Anubis. I need to pay more attention to who is posting what .

Anubis says:

01:15pm | 13/10/11

The ov erstayers who arrive by plane have travel documents including a passport and visa otherwise they would not get past the border. The immigration officials are then in a better position to determine who they are, where they are really from and are able to run Police/character checks on them.

The country shopping boat arrivals land here with no documentation (the majority of them destroy them either before leaving Indonesia or shortky thereafter), no visas etc. It is much harder to determine their identity, their age (adults masquerading as minors), their true country of origin or their police records or character. In travelling through multiple countries to get here they have either broken laws by crossing international borders without passports/visas, or have contravened the Refugee convention by not seeking asylum once they have arrived in a “friendly” or Un signatory country. Once they have passed through a “friendly” or Un signatory country into another country they are no longer refugees under the UN convention but legally become illigitemate immigrants (or Country Shoppers to use the common terminology). So, in most cases of the boat arrivals, they have broken laws and/or breached the UN Convention in order to reach Australia. Further, their direct arrival on our shores gives them precedence over genuine refugees who may have been languishing in camps in countries such as Malaysia for years.

Also, these boat arrivals are paying between $5000 and $25000 per head to the people smugglers. You have to ask why this money is not spent on airfares - they have used passports to get to Indonesia so they could surely arrive in Australia either with passport or by applying for a Visa or both. You must ask - is their character or past activities that poor that they will not take the (minor) risk of getting rejected for an Australian Visa as opposed to the major risk of death by coming to Australia from Indonesia on a leaky fishing boat? Also you have to question the tactics employed by some in sending unaccompanied children to Australia with the anticipation of being given free access to the countrey through family reunion.

nossy says:

11:51am | 13/10/11

@JC I have the answer to your problem fella - move to the Eastern States - QLD is always looking for good people. C u soon JC.

Ben C says:

01:02pm | 13/10/11

In response to your second problem JC, given the fairly frequent nature of these occurrences, you’re entitled to be concerned and confused. Not sure what more you could do apart from visit your Nanna more often, or check out her neighbours to see if they’re trustworthy.

Unfortunately, it just seems as though you’re not safe even in your own home.

Robert S McCormick says:

01:22pm | 13/10/11

JC, you say you are about 3 hours behind everyone else, does that mean you live in Perth (lucky you)? The only way you can get in early is to ensure you are up & on the go long before SA resident “Erick"whom, we are told, is already tapping away by 6.00am South Australian Time which is, I think,3.30am your time!.
I hope your Nana is OK. Nice to see a young person actually taking the trouble to visit their oldies as it seems so many are simply ignored by their own children & grand-children - until, of course it comes round to Will-reading time & there they all are, claw-like hands outstretched…

fairsfair says:

01:18pm | 13/10/11

lol Nossy. I am addicted to the glory of winning the word. After my effort last week I am trying to hang on, whatever it takes

Ben C says:

01:23pm | 13/10/11

Good luck Elphaba. That’s all I can really say.

adam says:

01:42pm | 13/10/11

Elph,

There is no such thing as too much syrup, keep the pastry under a quite damp teatowel till you need it and cutting the diamond shapes is far easier before it’s cooked.

Aitch B says:

02:17pm | 13/10/11

@Elphaba

Just curious…. what’s the name of your trivia team?

“Death By Sugar” perhaps?

Elphaba says:

02:17pm | 13/10/11

@adam I wasn’t sure when to cut it, I’ve seen recipes that said before and after, so thanks for that - I will do before.

All else fails, if it looks crap it’ll still taste good

fairsfair says:

02:55pm | 13/10/11

“The Diabetties” lol

Thats is my fave Simpsons ep!

“I’s slimmin’ down so I’s fit in mamma’s coffin”.

hot tub political machine says:

03:08pm | 13/10/11

A friend of mine once at a delicious cake made of rich dark chocolate, golden syrup and toffee.  He told me he was literrally shaking afterwards and - I still remeber it verbatim:

“I came this close to getting diabetes…..and it was worth it”

He is not only my friend, he is a national hero.

Elphaba says:

03:18pm | 13/10/11

@Aitch, it changes every week.  We really should settle on on name so we can gain some notoriety from our continual winning.

@HTPM, sounds like my kinda cake.  This is the whole reason I bake - I love baking and I love sweets.  Left to my own devices, if I bake something, I eat all of it.

This way, I get the joy of baking, but I only eat a little bit.  And I share the love (or is that heart palpitations?) around.

iansand says:

03:02pm | 13/10/11

Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique

adam says:

03:17pm | 13/10/11

I never espouse vigilantism, however, you enter my property uninvited or up to no good all bets are off.

nossy says:

05:11pm | 13/10/11

@NicoleG - Gillard and Labor are clever Nicole - this Carbon Tax which in reality is more like a Wealth Redistribution Tax , will make it so much harder for the Coalition to win government. When the Compensation packages roll out next year many low income earners will pay no tax, pensioners will get more dollars. Now can you imagine any of these groups voting for the Coalition and losing this extra money! On top of this Labor may throw the seemingly popular Rudd in as PM and hey presto what looked like a huge defeat may turn into a slender win! Clever , cunning - yes sireeee!
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8358477