All Activity

Good article by Saul Eslake correcting some misinformation that's doing the rounds about Jim Chalmers' budget. I think it's a step in the right direction, and good on them for having the courage. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2026/may/19/death-tax-startups-and-a-rent-spike-its-time-to-correct-misleading-claims-about-labors-budget

It's NOT a good Legal aspect. There's always plenty of discussion around it in ' Rights' circles. I thought the reason would be obvious. You wouldn't put a lower speed sign in and the Book people who went over that speed at an earlier time.. or change a notified burn off time . It's NOT FAIR (or reasonable) as I said.. Nev

Peter Hollingworth, retired former Anglican archbishop and former Governor General, has passed away, aged 91. Hollingworths later career was dogged by accusations he did nothing to prevent pedophiles from operating within the Anglican Church. He admitted that he was poorly prepared to deal with the problem, and thus did nothing about it. He was personally picked for the G.G. job by John Howard in 2001 - which smacks of a "job for a mate" to me - but Hollingworth resigned from the G.G. position in 2003 as the protests about his lack of dealing with the Anglican Church pedophiles, became louder and louder. He only resigned his Anglican priest status in 2023, officially to "end distress" for Anglican church abuse survivors. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-19/former-governor-general-peter-hollingworth-dies/106554086

I grew up on a wheat farm but certainly wouldn't like to be doing it these days. Dryland cropping was always a gamble with nature, but a lot more so these days with high input costs. A mate of mine recently sold his farm and retired to town. It was only a small place, 700 acres of cultivation, and he would plant the whole place to barley if he got a favourable season, and no summer crop at all. He was more of an opportunity farmer. Both he and his wife worked off farm and they would plant the whole block out if they got the rain, or if not, just rely on their off farm job income. Sometimes they would go two or three years without a crop in dry times. Back when we were kids, that block supported a family of four kids but you'd need two or three times that acerage to do it now. Most farms in that district have all been amalgamated into bigger holdings now. They were all just separate soldier settler blocks when I was there.

There's always necessary exceptions to that. Gun laws is just one of them. There's plenty of others.

There are a few examples of the unfairness of retrospectivity in leglislation. The various state's cultural heritage acts are an example. People in one state were immediately criminalised for something that's legal in other states due to introduced leglislation being retrospective.

Some of this stuff is very Long term and hard to re run. The time is Not there. It's not fair make something illegal today that wasn't yesterday and retrospectively apply it. . Nev

One of the Beetoota Advocate's satirical headlines, referring to grandfathering of leglislation: ' Labor To Finally Even The Playing Field For Younger Australians By Stopping Future Generations From Using The Tax Loopholes That Boomers Will Be Allowed To Keep Using'.

Just to clarify the above, he sued the IRS for not doing enough to stop his tax returns from being released. Very hard to see how that was worth $10B.

Just to clarify the above post, I'm not suggesting the Government has suddenly dreamed up these changes as a knee jerk reaction to current polling. I'm sure they would have long been there on the backburner as alternative policy, well before the election. Like a wish list to try to introduce when the time was right. But I doubt they went into last year's election denying they would introduce these changes, while knowing all along they were going to.

He's just dropped his $10B lawsuit against the IRS for releasing his tax return information a few years ago. He's withdrawn it `with prejudice' just ahead of the deadline so that the judge in the case can't dig any further into his dubious legal justification for bringing the case in the first place. In fact, she had already gone and obtained opinions from three independent legal firms that basically said that Trump didn't have a leg to stand on, so she could probably have gone after him for bringing a frivolous case or some other contempt charge. If he had withdrawn it `without prejudice', she could have pursued it further. In fact the IRS didn't release his tax returns. An independent contractor working for the IRS gave them to the New York Times, so he was blaming the wrong entity anyway. Also, the statute of limitations had already run out before he sued, but he claimed he only discovered what had happened fairly recently despite numerous posts confirming that he knew it was a contractor years ago. Now, having blocked the judge from doing any further investigation on her own authority, it looks as though he's got a $1,776B slush fund approved as an out of court settlement in his favour. To add insult to injury the odd amount is a reference to the date of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. He apparently wants to use it in part to compensate the convicted Jan 6 rioters to boost his argument that the election was stolen and that his loyal supporters were patriots and unfairly convicted until he pardoned them. In practice he will most likely find a way to keep most of the money himself. Of course the fund will be paid for by the hapless US taxpayers. The blatant corruption, lawlessness and cynicism on display should disgust most Americans, but that's who they voted for. No doubt he'll face some legal challenges to his slush fund, but if past experience is any guide he will quite likely get away with it.

That's always possible, but I really doubt they went to the election intending to deceive voters. Stemming the exit of a lot of their younger voters has more to do with the broken word. For Labor, going back on their word is probably seen as the least damaging option compared to losing a lot of Gen X and younger voters. Their polling is sending them a message that it's not only the coalition that stands to lose by the surge in support for One Nation. The intergenerational inequity they are talking about constantly these days existed before the last federal election when they ruled out the changes they are now introducing. At that election One Nation polled about 6% and a lot has changed since then with almost one in four voters expressing support in polls. Among males in their thirties, that number rises to one in three. That's a lot for Labor to digest and the political expediency of stemming the flow outweighs the damage caused by breaking their word in their way of thinking. They're smart enough to know they can't stay in power without the vote of aspirational young people, and the budget is a big gamble that they're hoping won't backfire on them. Time will tell on that one.

The LIES bit is being overblown and changed circumstances (Not of their Making) forced them to do something different. There are exemptions and grandfathering , so check the whole thing out. A LOT of unforeseen things Have Happened SINCE the election. They reacted and that's what should have happened IF they do the responsible thing in the CHANGED circumstances. We are getting through the Fuel situation Pretty well. (and Plenty of other things). Nev

I'm not saying they are the worst government around, but are you saying that it is OK because there are worse ones around? I also think that the recent lies within the budget would have been talked about before the election. You are right that they may only be in for one term but they know that before hand and one reason for the generous pension schemes although its not as relevant as it use to be. When the pension was implemented people use to have one job their whole working life, not so anymore. I hold people in office to a high standard, but that standard is not reached as often as it should be. They do work in a media saturated society now so you would think they would be more honest as they should now chances are they are going to get caught. I believe they don't care because I think they are smart enough to realise this. The way some (all) of them act in question time when they get asked a question they don't answer makes a mockery of the whole system!

To grow wheat, you Need Moisture deep in the soil. Growers Pick the years they sow. You don't want rain Late in the cycle. ALL Farmers are gamblers. Nev

A lot of FILL and obfuscation in that answer. Transparency is what is required. I suggest there's no more corruption in Politics than most other things like Banks, etc. Politicians are very Public figures. I wouldn't like to be One and Have to put up with all the BS, Slander and lack of any private Life. Their tenure is only till the next election. You could make more money other ways in a lot of cases. They are Not overpaid . Nev

Are politicians worse than they used to be? The problem is, it often comes down to your own perception. I asked AI: "Are Australian politicians of today more or less corrupt than in the past? Is there any way of knowing if politicians lie now more than in the past? " There’s a frustrating answer here: we probably can’t measure it cleanly across history — but we can say a few useful things with some confidence. Corruption: probably less blatant than in parts of the past If you go back through Australian political history, there were periods where corruption was remarkably open by modern standards: state “machine politics” in parts of NSW and Queensland patronage jobs and contracts cash donations with little transparency ministers mixing closely with developers, police, gambling interests, unions, or business figures weak anti-corruption oversight Australia has had major scandals across decades: the Loans Affair the WA Inc the Fitzgerald Inquiry The big difference today is not necessarily that human nature changed — it’s that: investigative journalism is stronger and faster digital records leave trails freedom-of-information systems exist anti-corruption commissions are more common donations and lobbying are at least partially disclosed politicians operate under constant media and social-media scrutiny Bodies like the National Anti-Corruption Commission now exist federally, which would have been politically unimaginable decades ago. So in terms of brown paper bag corruption — direct bribery, obvious cronyism, outright abuse of office — Australia is probably cleaner than some earlier eras. But modern corruption is often subtler Many people argue corruption today has shifted form rather than disappeared. Instead of obvious bribery, critics point to: revolving doors between politics and industry lobbying influence political donations pork-barrelling jobs for former ministers opaque consultancy contracts “legal but questionable” conduct This creates a strange effect: fewer spectacularly crooked politicians perhaps but more sophisticated systems of influence A lot of public distrust comes from the feeling that powerful interests still get privileged access, even if it happens within legal frameworks. Do politicians lie more now? This is even harder to measure. People often feel politicians lie more now, but there are several complications. 1. We see vastly more of them Past politicians could make contradictory statements in different towns and there might be no recording of it. Today: every interview is clipped every tweet archived every contradiction shared instantly So modern lying is much more visible and searchable. 2. Media cycles reward rapid messaging Modern politics runs 24/7. Politicians are constantly reacting: breakfast TV radio social media press conferences podcasts That environment encourages spin, simplification, evasiveness, and talking points. 3. “Lie” is difficult to define There’s a difference between: being mistaken exaggerating changing position using selective statistics deliberate deception Historians can identify some famous past lies easily: war justifications broken promises concealed scandals misleading parliament But systematic fact-checking barely existed historically, so comparisons are shaky. One thing that has changed: public tolerance Australians may actually be less tolerant of political dishonesty now than in some earlier periods. There’s more expectation of: transparency accountability resignation after scandals evidence for claims At the same time, partisan media and online tribalism can make supporters more willing to excuse dishonesty from “their side.” The paradox Modern politicians may not necessarily be morally worse than earlier generations. But: they operate in a more media-saturated environment every flaw is amplified trust in institutions has declined generally political communication has become more professionalised and strategic So people often perceive politics as more dishonest even if some forms of outright corruption have actually decreased. A historian might summarise it this way: Old corruption was often cruder and more direct. Modern corruption, where it exists, is more procedural, legalistic, and hidden inside systems of influence. And political lying probably hasn’t been invented by the internet age — we just now possess a permanent searchable archive of it.

Overnight on Sunday we got about 3mm, but then the rains started during the day and kept up into the evening. I don't have a guage, so I can't say how much we got, but whenyou look at data from around about, it would seem that 30 - 45 mm was common. There wasn't enough rain to create running flows, but at least the topsoil is wet. It is too late around here to plant Canola and teh sub-soil moisture might not be enough for cereal crops. With the price of diesel and fertilizer, it is going to be a gamble if anyone does crop this year. One thing you have to remember is that, while you might get a good healthy growth of wheat plants, it takes a lot of water for those plants to fill seeds, which is how you get the tonnages you want from a crop.

So ... OME, did you get that drought-breaking rain? I see where Coonabrabran got 43mm, Dubbo got 30mm, and Nyngan got 50mm, so you must have had a decent downpour, at the very least?

What a lovely thought! Let's just hope the next White house resident is more like Obama, and not a Trump-like replacement.

One day there will be no Trump. What will we do with this thread then?

Who else would GET AWAY with such behaviour??? What a dreadful example HE sets. Nev

wille IIF you quote it you Own it unless you state otherwise. Siso, We have Far from the worst government around. You have to read a lot of rubbish to believe otherwise and there's PLENTY of that ABOUT. It's easy to just rave on with little facts to back it up. The rest of the World thinks WE are doing alright in the circumstances. That doesn't just happen by Itself.. Nev

Are you guys saying we should just accept that politicians are always going to lie for our benefit? Why worry about having election campaigns then. Do we just pick those whose lies matter least.

Not Elon exactly, but his old man Errol Musk. When asked about him getting his step daughter pregnant, he laughed and said "She got herself pregnant."