Jerry_Atrick

Me neither. but the first movers in highe tech industries often get an advantage and retain it. Nethlerlands still leads windill manufacture even though China is in on the act. Tesla still retains a decent share of the market in the wake of massive Chinese investment and number of entrants to the market. Despite Europe and Japan this time being the laggard, they too are able to have an EV market that, thanks to Chump, s growing. Australia seems to sell its IP off and not willing to invest for the long term gains. China produces things cheaper - US and European manufacturers set up there and own the IP and the profits, at least. Even the vid says the good profressor was about dissemination of information - i.e. give away the IP? One of the reasons was there was little reception outside of advanced scientific (e.g satellite) use. We just don't embrace the future that well. A lot of people fall into the "Ok, renewables" or whatever the technology is expensive to deploy. When has capital intensive industries been cheap to deploy?: But these developments often displace the industry that was cheap to run... we never seem to learn the lesson. Returns are based on innovation investment, not operational costs. That is what I meant by another lost opportunity - we develop the future, but we don't embrace it and capitalise on it - systemically (yes, there are a few examples where we buck the trend). I see it being the same in the UK.. And now, oddly, which Chump making America grate again, his desire to roll back the ages is putting the US farther back, quicker than it has been going.

Sadly, it looks like yet another commerical opportunity missed by Australia, but at least we are starting to realise the benefits, even in the face of stiff propaganda provided courtesy of the fossil fuel industry through both social and mainstream media, soaked up by a largely but decreasingly gullible public

@Grumpy Old Nasho - you really need to stay away from TV.. It is mainly American fed BS that doesn't even apply in their legal systems. War crimes are covered under the Crimes Act (Commonwwealth), making it a federal office; not a state offence. It is an indictable (serious) offence. However, there is no federal criminal court, the court of the first instance will be the supreme court of whichever state he is in, which is NSW. Under NSW law, all indictable offences require a trial by jury, except where, in the court's opinion, there is so much publicity that would impact almost anyone from being unbiased and potentially predisposed to a guilty verdict. But, this does not apply to federal offences thanks to s.80 (I think) of the Aussie constitrution, that requires all commonwealth (fedral) indictable offences to be tried by jury. The Bondi gunmen are also to be tried in the NSW Supreme Court in the first instance. In both cased, the defence may (and will likely) petition the court that a trial by jury would be prejudicial to the defence. If both succeed, then the outcome will be different for both defendants. Roberts-Smith will walk free. As the court will deem he cannot be granted a fair trial by jury, and the Aussie constitution requires those charged with a federal indictable offence are tied by jury, the court has no choice. It's as simple as that. Of course, the prosecution will appeal it, but if the decision is upheld, Robert Smith is a free man. In the case of the Bondi Gunman, there are 59 offences including murder, attempted murder, terrorism, firearms, etc. For the NSW state offences (murder, attempted murder , some of the firearms offences, some of the terrorism offences), he will still be tried - but by a judge only or a number of judges. He does not automatically walk free. If the defence do not agree, he will still be tried by jury. Unlike Roberts-Smith, he has no "get out of jail" card, if you will excuse the pun. But there's more.. the procedure is slightly different, especially where the judge has to give reasons for finding of fact (where a jury doesn't), It is hard to quantify, but because it holds the judge to a higher level of scrutiny, is is argued tha ut us harder to get a convuiction because they judge requires more to eliminate reasonable doubt (standard of proof the prosecution must provide) and less to introduce doubt on the balance of probabilities (standard of proof required by the defence). Every new editor (TV, magazine, radio, etc) in the country knows this. So, your theory that all the hype with Roberts Smith and the relatively low coverage of the Bondi Gunman is to lynch Roberts-Smith is so far from reality, it beggars belief. It is in Roberts-Smith best interests that there is as much bombastic coverage showing him as guilty as possible. With every press story that can predispose people to an opinion, the defence case stengthens that he can walk away a free man. Similarly for the Bondi Gunman, as if the defence will have less to do to introduce reasonable doubt (not that that will happen) or intorduce a defence (e.g. mental impairment - still slim but probably he only one he has got form what I saw as provication has to be proximate). By the press not covering it obsessively, they are prroviding less than they could to the defence to give them their best short at walking away. But, if you want to reverse the situation and have all the coverage on the Bondi person and none or less on Roberts-Smith, then you are virtually guaranteeing he will be tried, and possibly allowing enough of a sliver of hope the Bonid gunman can rely of some defence (though I doubt it, because criminal mental impariment is a much narrower definition than clincial definitions).

Winding path (to the find the missing letters, above)

This is the first time I have tried an AFR artivle for eons and I am sure my IP address has changed since I last accessed as I recently changed ISP. My guess is they allowed free use for a short period.

A prodigee of Abbott? Be careful what you ask for.

Indeed.. It looks like the "other alliance" is a bit stronger than ours: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-supplies-iran-with-cyber-support-spy-imagery-hone-attacks-ukraine-says-2026-04-07/ That't thank thanks Chump gets from Putin.. Of course, Chump won't see it that way.

The original article I saw was either on the ABC or The Age website (when I go tot he Guardian, it usually only feeds me British based or, for global news, what it considers important or interesting for Brits. There was no mention of CGT for the primary residence, but there was mention on negative grearing being removed from all but a private investor's first investment property; It must have been The Age, as I doubt very much the ABC wouls pull an article for a reason other than it iwas plainly inaccurate. But here is what I found from teh ABC: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-04/capital-gains-tax-changes-among-options-as-labor-weighs-housing/106306738 And it only mentions CGT discountsd being removed from investment properties. Which, IMHO, is the correct thing to do. Inherited properties that are then used by the beneficiaries to rent out (i.e. become an investment propety) should be required to have a surveyor's valuation at the commencement of them being advertised for rent so that the CGT clock starts tickign with an accurate assesment.. Or maybe ion this case, because of the emotional ties, maybe wait 12 - 24 months and if they sell in that period, then it is CGT free; after that the valuation has to be obtained and CGT has to be paid on a subsequent sale. Of course, this creates a perverse outcome on an intergenerational basis. Keep the original home in the family and pass it on to subsequent generations = no tax. Convert it to cash to invest in some other form of asset/wealth building investment, and you pat tax, and have less to invest and pass on. Would have to look into the stats of how many homes are passed onto multiple generations to work out the real impact. Be that as it may, it would be incredibly uunfair to CGT the primary property anyway. Not because of the fact it was already paid for by post tax dollars and insn;t an investment per se, but a place to live; but also, the deduction being inflation rate is not representative of the true inflation rate of a house. Unless you are moving into a care home of some sort, you are likely to be purchasing another property to live in. As house price inflation often skyrockets past the normal inflation rate and the price increase of houses is excluded from the inflation calculation, if you sold your house and had to pay CGT on it, you could not afford at least a similar standard of house - you would be going backward. And this would probably stall the housing market (except for those thast had to sell) and foprce prices up even further - no supply but a demand still will tend to do that. Labor, or Albo is not stupid.

Once again you sling mud with no substance and show your bias against Israel,.. IHaven't heard you reliably debunk much, if anything with fact Who's biased? Pot calling kettle, etc etc

I see FIFA haven't stripped him of their inaugural peace prize. I wonder who gets their second one?

I may be thick, but I genuinely don't get what you are saying. How does all humans being equal equate to being pro-Palestinian? Believing they are unfairly treated by the Israelis is one thing (whether that is true or not - I can no longer be arsed getting into that argument), but being pro-Palestinian because all humans are equal sort of ignores the horrible inequities in Palestinian controlled areas (Gaza and Ramallah) - as well as other Arabic or Islamic nations - I dunno, like Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi, Iran, Afghaistan, many ogf the other 'Stans, and the like. Unless killing gays because they are gay, or beating your wife legally and even being instructed on how to do it, legal honour killings, discrtimination against far east labourers, slavery, etc is treating everyone equally. You know - like in Israel whihc has the largest - because the only gay pride; where foreign workers are treated the same as local, where Palestinian citrizes have the same rights and one was even the previous deputy PM, and there have been Palesitnian cheif jidges of the Israeli high court. Where women are eqqual and marital rape, wife beating, etc is against the law. Where even a soldier will be held to account for killing a Palestinian terrorst after they have injured aoir killed other Israeli soldiers. Where before 7 October, Israel provided necessary medical care to Gazans and Ramallans despite there being lots of hospitals in those two areas - some hopefully withoput weapons cahces under them. Where Israel provided Gazan with the water supply (and still do) despite Hamas firing rockets at them almost daily. Where many Gazans used to work in Israel with the same rights and conditions as Israelis and could move about freely (they were justifiably searched oin their way into Israel because of the risk of them wearing bombs). Hang on.. Where is their vocal opposition to Russia that does commit war crimes on a daily basis, targetting civilian infrastructure? Where is their vocal oppostiion to the many wars and conflicts in the middle east that don't involve Israel? I can't recall much more than a scant reference to Iran, and even then it was more about the illegal Chump/Net war and not the 30,00+ civilians killed (although this could be because the newspapers and the ABC don;'t gibve them much coverage). Then, yeah. good on the Greens for sticking with their morals. Give them a clap. They're just being perfect and it's not anti-semitism at all. Shame though, because most of heir policies, if implemented properly, seem pretty good. Would I vote for them despite the above? Actually, probably, because thankfully in the incredibly unlikely event they got in, they cold probably block exports and imports to/from Israel. I don't think wither country would lose sleep over it. Given it is unlikely they would get in, the additional primnarly vote would hopefully send a message to the majors to lift their game in the other areas.

I don't agree with everything you have written, but the sentiment is spot on, IMHO.

One of the big tax perks that is gaining a lot of attention lately is the directors loans. The more you make and the more you borrow, the more you save in tax. In many jurisdictions there is (or was) a threshold for converting directors loans to dividends. It typically was about the same as the zero tax rate. For the rest, you set up a commercial rate between the director and the holding company; the loan will cover the repayment agreement, which can be very minimal. As you receive this money as a loan, there is no tax payable. The tiny repaymnent terms, just enough to be considered a legal contract, mean that the interest earned by the company and tax paid is minimal or the income from interest is offset by the admin costs. When you finally die, you have no assets in your name to repay the loan, your estate is bankrupt (your ownership of the coompany is returned to the company and distributed to the remaining shareholders, usually your family. Voilla! Virtually no tax paid. Blind or secret trusts are another good way as they often benefit from tax deductions not available to private people and you can't tell who is the beneficiary to loob tax against when they exit the trust (either through death or some other form). Apart from some family trusts, which now attract dfifferent tax treatment, the UK has effectively limited the life of any trust to 80 years, after which the lessor of capital gains, probate taxes, stamp duties, etc must be paid.

It's a bright future he have. This came from a weekly AI newsletter I get: npm is a package manager for javascrip and used to deploy most web apps.

The couldn't pronounce him guilty at a press conference - unless they want the trial and the charges to be dropped from subjudice. I was merely taking on the position of a civil law case, and on one of the alleged murders, at time was an unarmed and restrained person. As I mentioned, I don't know muc about military law, and the conjecture was based on civilian law. However, surely, a PoW has a right not ro be murdered. For that one case I mentioned, it does not seem in dispute - at least in the court of public opinion - that the victim was partially bound (hands/wrists) and gagged, and unarmed. At that stage, is he a PoW - I would imagine it to be dependent on the circumstances - and that it does not need someone to be physically locked up. I'll read the pdf later and get back.

I haven't seen what you refer to, but if it is so, then you are right . The problem is today, there is a lot about virtue signalling without allowing the process to take place to make a determination. Until, that something makes their virtueness look a biut ugly,. then it is dennial followed by wiait for due process.

Either way, he would have been excused from service - too dangerous to his own men. .Can't shut up which is not good on a patrol, I imagine.

How on earth then, did you get your flight radioo operators licence? Did they only have morse code in those days? 🙂 (double "o" intended on radio for Scottish accent effect)

I agree, Nev. I haven't served, but have worked closely with active serving personnel, some of whom were in the elite force of their country. I would always defer to someone who has served for a more considered opinion, but my observation was that the special forces personnel were selected and traing based on their mental toughness and fortitude. A lot of the physical training is about building the mental toughness. This no doubt has an impact, but one thing it does mean is that they are more likely to see somethng through then your average soldier. And when they choose to operate outside SoP and commands, it is more likely because they intended it. Whether that intention is pure evil or the result of what they have experienced and some form of PTSD or other mental impairment should, rightly so, be determined by a court of law - Is this going through the civil or military courts? This is the same of anyone charged with murder; it is not the police job to pass judgement; it is the prosecutor to determine if on the evidence there may be a good case to answer; and then on the judge/jury or military panel (apols if that is no longer the case - I don't really know too much about military law). If it is a civil trial, they will have to establish which state it comes under (most likely territory - and therefore federal criminal law). Regardless, they will have to prove two elements beyond reasonable doubt - actus reus - guitly act - and that it was he who caused the death with no intervening factors; and then b) mens rea - guilty mind (in Aus, they now call it the fault element). They will have to prove, subjectively, i.e. that in Robert's -Smith own mind rather than what a reasonable person would think, that he intended to kill (or commit grevous bodily harm) or was criminally reckless (not negligent) to whether or not the deaths would occur form his actions. Both have to be proved beyone reasonable doubt. Then there could be defences, of which mental impariment is one. Interestingly, the defences only have to be proven to a balance of probability - more likely than not - that the conditions for the defence occured. I would imagine it would be a similar apprach in military law. What is widely reported is that he had an unarmed civilians with arms tied behind his back, and if I recall correctly, blindfolded, stand at a ledge of a ricky outcrop, in which Roberts-Smith intentionally kicked the person over thee outcrop. Assuming it to be accurate in that case, the actus reus is definitely there, and the facts would storngly suggest the reuisite intention ir criminal recklessness. That would then open the defences. Extreme provocation is a partial defence these days; so the provocation of comrades being killed previously in an ambush (the previous day) may come into it, but probably not as the law was changed to virtually immediate provocation - so an immediate reaction to provcation. Anything else is a cold blooded intention. There are a couple of other defences but from memory none would really apply. He would have to show on the balance of probability that he had some form of mental impairment and PTSD is one that the court will accept. He only needs to show it was likely rather than definite. So, there is a lot to play out here. And he, like everyone else deserves a fair trial. It is high time it came.. If he is found to have suffered mental impairment, the court will order an assessment and potentially lodgings at a suitable HMAS instituton. The assessment may determine he is no longer suffering or if so, he does not need lodgings as long as he submts to and maintains prescribed treatment.

It's the accent... 😉

Looks like the Labor government are finally considering reforming the residential rental market taxes around CGT and Negative Gearing: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/property-shift-flagged-for-aussie-investors-as-interest-rates-rise-and-tax-changes-loom-060042724.html (I can;t find the original article I found - that will have to do). This, to me, is a positive step. Of course, if you are a big private investor in residential property, then you will probably disagree. But, it tries to strike the right balance between using housing for housing (preferably affordably), and enough incentive for investing in residential property to keep rentals going. But the aim should be to get people into their own houses. Yes, in some countries in Europe, rentals are the norm, but these are markets with very different structures to Australia, and there is usually some rental price controls in place. For example, in the UK, there are some mansions in Notting Hill and Holand Park under rent control - ironically where the renters can pass their rights in succession - i.e. it transdfers to theur surviving family or benefciaries. These are literally renting for less than a thousand pounds a year, and the owners are stuck with them as they can't evict the tenants except for breach of lease. In Europe, similar conditions exist, but they are a little more favourable to the investor. In Australia, we don't have such controls. Imposing these will probably implode the residentiial rental market. Also, we have space. As an investment market, resdidential dwellings is horribly inefficient at allocating capital as the demand will be there regardless of whether an investor buys a poperty of a live-in owner. One downside is that it could lead to house price deflation over the longer term, so if you are borrowing with a very high loan to value ratio, your home is likely to not be in the black for some time; and if you want to sell with a higher mortgage, you may find the sale price may not be enough to cover the balance of the mortage. Of course, the poliy is designed to minimise th eimpact, but it is a possibility. The conservatives here were a bit more brutal, and it dfid cause negative equity for a lot of people for a while.

I'll address this in the What's Albo Done Now thread, but, if you'll pardon the pun, in short, Shorten went to the 2019 election with policies that would cool the market by making it harder for investors to open up the market for home owners. The Australian electorate decided on Morrison over Shorten - and let's be honest, most people would have known what they are in for by voting for Morrison at that stage. Given the pollies are supposed to represent the people,, Labor changed its policy to represent the people. Aussies really have no one to blame but themselves for that one. Making the housing market an investment rather than a, well, housing market is the Lib's motto. People bought into it.. Problem is, now they are realising the folly of that approach (see the What's Albo Done Now thread though). I agree - he is definitely more Australia focused than the Libs. Problem for me is he could do a lot better in this. Although something is better than nothing. Absolutely agree. Also, one of the problems we have is that a lot of senior parliamentarians have, as part of their investment portfolio, rental dwellings. And some MPs have a sizeable number of them. I like what appear to be the Green's idea - allow one or two, but not unlimited dwellings to be put through negative gearing. The UK conservatives - under BoJo, if not earlier, entirely removed the concept of negative gearing and deducting mroe than a small amount for costs from income received from renting dwellings. The exception is where a company is involved, but thhere is full capital gains tax payable - wherewas there was also relief on CGT for private investors. The result - a more affordable housing market.

Ahh.. but he is the master of the art of the deal... In his own mind

Welcome to the dark side if the forums! Others have dealt with Chump wanting the best for his country, which, I guess will depend on what perspective one takes. I don't like the left.right description as it is too rigit; I prefer to consider myself a progressive capitalist.. You can take that as centre right or left - on some things I am definitely left of centre; on others I am right of centre - but to me, some of them are so contradicting, I would prefer not to get drawn into left or right. On that basis, let's look at his policvies and promises - whether or not heis successful on them. Drill baby, Drill - i.e. regress to further reliance on fossil fuels. This may provide some very short term pain relief, except for the war that has been started. But mid and long term, it is bad for the US. First, it locks the US consumer and industry into a fuel source that is subject to the vagaries of the internation markets. Secondly, it locks the US out of international trade in renewables, which is growing compared to fossil fuel. There will always be a need for fossil fuel - at least for the imaginable future, but it will reduce. In addition, the side effects of health and environmental issues (yes, Lithium batteries manufacture cause a lot of CO2, but the improvements in manufacturing are seeing those levels drop and other battery technology is far cleaner - e.g. sodium, etc). What he is doing is handing the international market to the Chinese and the Dutch and creating a reliance on the Middle East, Northern Europe and Russia. West Textas light sweet crude is now largely in shale, which means fracking and a lot of ecological damage, drinking water pollution, etc. Tariffs: The policy of tariffs can be positive, if targeted to support local induustry and there are plans in place to grow and modernise those sectors so they can compete on the international stage, or at least bring domestic prices down. In some sectors, they are setting up plants in the USA to avoid the tariffs. This is sort of good, because it basically means domestic market production will come form the US. So, it will reduce imports and provide some short term boost to employment, and a smaller longer term boost to employment. So, on one hand, it is positive. But, the fliup side is they are inflationary - right at the cost of living crisis. Guess short term pain for long term gain, maybe. Of course, his erratic implementation of them, and using them as "bargaining" or threatening chip brings into question his intention to use them to only improve domestic production. On the other hand, his appoach has been also negative. He has directly hit USA exporters as countries started boycotting goods - so too did consumers in other countries. In addition, his antics have resulted in reduced travel demand to the USA - which is a big export earner. He has incentivised his trading partners to look elsewhere, and they have. The BRICS countries have had some benefit - though not universal. China and India have been the bigger winners in that order. The USD as a reserve currency is now under threat. This will mean it will be more susceptible to devaluations and that will increase prices enormously. His reduction of taxes for the wealthy, which have been opposed by a suprising number of wealthy people, and the enormous additional debt he is generating for no prodcutivity gains, The long term debt, increase,coupled with other factors such as an ageing population, etc, will see debt rise to up to 200% of GDP by 2050. This is clearly unsustainable and not very good for the country. His policy of dissolving the federal education department, whcih provides funds and oversees education to poorer demographics (ironically those most likely to vote for him) without a replacement that does it better is in no way good for the country. It widens the social gap in a country that already has a mass murder issue with ubuiuitous distribution of firearms. It holds the poorer back, and as such, holds ociety back. Taking a chainsaw to something may save some cash in the very short term - but this is definitely a short term gain, long term excrutiating pain policy. The dismantling of medicaid and replacement of a much better, but unspecified public health initative... well, it is just hot air. In the mean time, more and more people fall through the safety net, and a sicker population = a sicker and less productive workforce.. not very good for the country as productivity is hit. This reduction of illegal immigrants and the reprartriation of thosein the USA, I think is short term pain for longer term gain. The problem is that the US economy is built on the use of cheap, non-documented labour. You can pay them next to nothing (slavery); they have no access to publoc resources, so the government doesn't need to look after them . Win-Win. Do they take jobs of the locals? Most people say no, because the locals aren't willing to do the work. I would add, for the rate of pay that the illegal immigrants are willing to work. So, there would be short term food shortages and/or food inflation, but, in theory, as the wages rose to attract staff, so would local workers arrive. That wold decrease unemployment, increase salaries, and yeah, increase prices. This may impact their agrciltural exports longer term, but things would eventually normalise, and the farms would modernise as well. Maybe they may even start producing uality beef to compete? Again, the execution is shambolic, and deporting those that havce been in the country for a long time, settled with families, and contributing positively to the community and economy may be a bit of an own goal. Bit generally, yeah, should be better for the country. I agree we have gone too far in the push for globalisation. There are structral reasons why we have done so, but i think we were sold out in the globalisation push. . But I take umbrage on the claim the current government are taking us down the shit chute. On your own measure, this government seems to be doing OK. Australia has never had a consistent surplus in the balance of trade. Our exports are largely primary goods supplimented with secondary goods (machinery, for example). We have lately had some isolated successes with tertiary goods - bottled wine, some foods (Tim Tams - yay!), and the odd gadget (Rode audio being one such thing). Of course, can't forget Gippland Aviation and Jabiru. But these are , unfortunatley, small fry compared to what our agriculture was and our resources are. Our car exports were heavily subsidsed by local pricing, so I would hardly call that a success story - and how many mass car manufacturers does Australia have now, and how many were local owned? The chart below shows our balance of trade historically has been small and oscillated between positive and negative, and it being consistently negative since the Fraser years. The second resources boom started in 2015 and didn't pick up export steam until 2019. But since Albo took over and repaired relations with our biggest trading partner, China, our exports have boomed far more than under the Morrison and Turnbull government (and whoever was before Turbull): That is not to say the current people are doing a great job, but I think they are doing OK-ish. Which is probably why I give Shump a bigger roasting than Albo, but Albo is not spared. Of course, there is more that can be done, and should be done,. For example, they should have pulled the pin on Aukus or mandated the subs and the tech are built here under licence. Better still, we could take that $38bn, which doesn't guarantee one sub, and start a domestic owned defence contractor here. We have (or had) the uality engineering education to drive graduates, and there are many Aussie engineers employed with forieng companies in foreign places that are experienced enough to lead a new government sponsored startup. Yes, we do have a handful of Aussie owned defence contractors/manufacturers, but most og the big stuff goes to foreign owned countries. I would still liekto see a real buy Australian policy; the Foreign Investment Review Commission do a proper job, and maybe have a policy where foreign companies wishing to start up offices in Australia need to partner with local business or provide for new local owned euity in that business. I am sure I could thing of many more things.. The point is, yep agree with your general sentiment, but the biot about Chump wanting the best for his country doesn't entirely wash.

The indemnity ceases at the end of the term. Each year, your inusrance expires and that, say $400, has paid for the indemnity for that period of time. Then when you renew, it is a new indemnity for all intents and purposes. I will try and explain it for a 5 year old. When you drive, you have a contingent liability - that is, while you are driving, you are accepting that should you have an accident that is your fault and you injure someone (physically or mentally), then you will be liable - or responsible - or be required to pay the injured party for their medical treatment - for how long that will take, any lost income, and potentially damages for pain and suffering (ex Vic, I think). That means, if you cause an accident and a severe injury to someone else, your liability will kick in and the costs of medical treatment (think chronic and continuing) can easily run into the millions. And the loss of include can easily also run into the hundreds of thousands and if long enough - even milltions. Clearly, all but a very few drivers in society can afford that sort of liability. And clearly, this will only happen to a few drivers out of the population, So, rather than be in a position where you cause someone a severe injury that bankrupts you and means the victim does not get the treatment or compensation they deserve, the government, with good judgement has deemed that this risk must be transferred to an insurer that can pool the premiums of many drivers and therefore have enough to pay for the likely number and cost of claims that will arise as a result. This is common to virtually every western government/society, because these societies have decided that it is a high priority that the person is protected as much as possinle in an activity which has a fairly high chance of something going wrong. This to me is a sound decision, because it means the victim can get the treatment, lost income, and compensation that would be right for them to receive as a resuilt, and the driver is not bankrupted at the same time. Everyone is happy (as much as they can be in these citcumstances). So, the $400 you pay gives you unlimited protection - you can kill and maim as many people as you want as long as it was accidental, and you won't pay a cent for their compensation nor costs. You can literally run up 10s of millions of dollars in long term liability over the duration of your insurance coverage - which is one year, never pay another penny as you decide it is time to hang up the car keys, and that is it. $400 to me seems a bargain. Of course, it is a furphy to say in most of Australia it is your choice to drive - especially in the sticks. The reason is that Australia is so heavily dependent on cars - even the big cities really do require them - especially in the outer suburbs. But because cars (and motorbikes, and trucks, and vans, etc) can be quite lethal, a part of the cost is ensuring that you asre covered in the case of you causing an accident and personal injury as a result. You need a car- they aren't free. You need petrol (or electricity) - that isn't free (well, for some, sort of is, but lets assume depreciation of solar cells). You have to register the car to pay for things like the roads; that isn't free; and insuring your car, even if you don't claim, isn't free. You have to accept it as a cost of driving. Note, you don't have to have third party property or comprehensive insurance. The goivernments have said, in the priority of things, they have left this totally up to the driver. If you do not want to transfer that contingent obligation to an insurer and protect what assets you have, that is entirely your business. At the end of each year, your insurance expires. The indemnity provided to you has to be renewed. As I said, you don't have to renew it if you don't want to drive. You may have in the last year caused an accident that has led to someone needing a large amount of care over a long time, list $150k.year salary, and is in constant pain and suffering. Because you stop renewing your premium, does not stop the liability of the insurer (although sometimes there is a big one off payout to cover for the years of assistance, lost income and pain and suffering, it is rarer these days, where the costs cannot be predicted accurately). But, you may not have an accident that is your fauit. Which means no liability of the insurance company (or more accuately no liability to you, which is indemnified by the insurance company) arises. OK.. that is why you are paying only $400 for the year and not $1milliion or $10m. That is because, insurance is about pooling contingent obligations and paying out when the events that give rise to those obligations occur. Still with me? I assume you are. In that way, it does share the burden across people, but make it a lot smaller than a massive and usually unable to be met burden across a much smaller number of people. This makes driving accessible to all, including you. The government, and most of society I would hope, would deem ensuring every driver has sufficent means to pay for any accident they cause that results in personal injury. If you don't want to pay someone else to take the risk on for you, then I would suggest the government would want some form of security from you that you could cover any likely oblligation if it arose from you causing an accident and injuring someone. That would mean they would a) take a lein over your house.. But it is unlikely most peoples' properties would cover what can be likely to arise int he obligation. So, don't worry, they will give it back to you when you stop driving, but they will take a $1m+ sureity deposit from you. Now, you may be able to cough up that amount of money and let the government hold it on your behalf, but most wouldn't and not too many people would be able to drive - legally. So, yeah. you are paying for something where you may never give rise to an obligation, but that is the cost to make it accessible not only to you, but to all. But, why can't you just pay the prevoium and get it back if you don't make a claim? Well, it wouldn't take too much brain usage to work that one out. ChatGPT tells me there is no relianle stats that say what percentage of drivers in australia cause an accident that results in personal injury. But using statistical extrapolication methods, it calculates up to 0.5% of the population. So, for every 200 drivers out there, 1 will cause such an accident. The average cost of compensation will is around $118,000; some are low, and some are very high. Again, according to ChatGPT, so pls take it as, at best a guide. So, given for every 200 drivers there will be, on average, 1 driver that causes 1 accident and the cost per accident per year will average $118,000.. Let's not even bring the per-annum dimension into this. So, assume the CTP insurance premium for all 200 drivers is over their life time, $35,000. Let's assume they all start and end their driving at the same time. Now, all the drivers that didn't have a claim will get there money back, which is what your asking for That leaves the money of the driver - $35,000 - in the scheme. However, the one accident has cost the scheme $118,000. Now, take into account all of the drivers, and all of the accidents, and the range of costs, and the fact this is an annual number not the life of a scheme number, and you can see it will take all of a year for the scheme to go bust or be a massive drain on the public purse. Which means more taxes, or rego to cover it.. What you are suggesting is a complete folly - in other words BS. Here is the hcart of the average cost of the personal injury claims from accidents by age group. Guess which age group has the highest. Yet, your policy price is the same as those with the lowest. If you have been driving all your adult life, you're about even. Up to about 30, and above 60, you are costing more than between 31 and 59 - on average. Therefore at the moment, almost all those younger than you are paying more to cover your risk. Yes, you may be the bestest driver at your age, so you may wualify for a small discount. But the risk assesment tells the insurers you aren't a great risk, buit better to slug those younger than you than make you pay more. I honestly don't understand what you are complaining about. Imagine if the insurers had to make a profit. You'd be paying as much, if not more than the UK and US folks do.