# Gina Rinehart



## numbercruncher (9 June 2012)

This woman has become such a big player in Australia and indeed the world that she deserves her own thread.

To me she opitimises all that is pathetic about the capatalist system and individuals that get to personally control to much capital and asset.

3 out of 4 of her Children cant stand her according to the media - now that would say something about anyone.

Ill start the thread with article that articulates typical public perception of this woman.




> UNDER THE CONTROL OF GINA RINEHART
> 
> THE inference you take from numerous reports over Fairfax Media's apparent reluctance to offer its biggest shareholder, Gina Rinehart, a board seat (or the requested two) is that she has been reluctant to pledge not to try to directly influence editorial policy.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/under-the-influence-of-gina-rinehart/story-e6frg9to-1226381993488


----------



## pilots (9 June 2012)

So you are not happy with our  capatalist system, you should spend some time in a communist country and see hoe good they are going, I have worked in some of them country's, I know who has the best living conditions.


----------



## basilio (9 June 2012)

The reasoning behind democratic, law based societies is  to protect the majority of the population from the excesses of  those who want it all for themselves. 

If we let the Rineharts and Murdochs of the world free rein we can't be surprised if we get collectively screwed  over. That's the result of unfettered capitalism.

But that's obvious isn't it ?


----------



## Joe Blow (9 June 2012)

Folks, just a brief reminder to please keep the language civil and that personal attacks and insults are not acceptable.

Stick to discussing the topic and hand and do not attack or deliberately provoke others.

Edit: Four off-topic posts removed. I will not hesitate to remove more should it be necessary.


----------



## Miss Hale (9 June 2012)

I don't mind her and I thought the attack on her on Q&A was appalling.  And where are all the feminists, why aren't they standing up for her when people are calling her fat and ugly?

Fairfax could certinly benefit from her expertise on the board - their loss.


----------



## basilio (9 June 2012)

Totally wrong to attack Gina Rinehart for being "fat and ugly".  The question for discussion is how does our society control/regulate people who  basically want to take over the country for their own personal benefit. For example changing laws that might affect their wealth and power, attacking others who want to make them more accountable, and or destroying social or business competition.

As a matter of comparison we can go back to the America of the 1870- 1900's when the business robber barons were in full flight and the remainder of the country took a beating.


----------



## Calliope (9 June 2012)

Joe Blow said:


> Folks, just a brief reminder to please keep the language civil and that personal attacks and insults are not acceptable.
> 
> Stick to discussing the topic and hand and do not attack or deliberately provoke others.
> 
> Edit: Four off-topic posts removed. I will not hesitate to remove more should it be necessary.




This raises the question as to why this thread was started or allowed. Every aspect of Rinehart's looks, character, political leanings, wealth, and even odour, has been well and truly done over on another thread. This thread was  surely intended to be provocative.


----------



## Joe Blow (9 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> This raises the question as to why this thread was started or allowed. Every aspect of Rinehart's looks, character, political leanings, wealth, and even odour, has been well and truly done over on another thread. This thread was  surely intended to be provocative.




I can't stop someone from starting a thread about a public figure. If people want to discuss Gina Rinehart it's probably better to have a dedicated thread for the purpose rather than derail other threads with off-topic discussion.

However, I think that ad hominem attacks do not do anything to further the discussion. If people want to discuss Gina Rinehart's public statements or her actions as a businessperson then fair enough. But to attack her for being overweight, rich or female is poor form and anyone who keep that sort of rubbish up can expect to be pulled up by me.

Stick to the facts and keep the discussion civil and as respectful as possible.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 June 2012)

pilots said:


> So you are not happy with our  capatalist system.




We do not have a capitalist system, we have something more akin to national socialism.


Gina Rinehart is a terrible person who is the embodiment of what people see wrong with capitalism. I think capitalism is great and we should have more of it in Australia (and everywhere else), however people like her are an obstacle to capitalists, because they portray only the absolute worst in it.

Capitalism is meant to serve the people, and all capitalists in truly democratic countries have a responsibility to show people that it is the single greatest economic system ever devised.

Unfortunately much like JP Morgan, JD Rockerfeller and many other prominent highly wealthy individuals of the past, Gina Rinehart hates capitalism and competition - the very same things which have brought her all her wealth. Instead of benefiting the country and people who have brought her everything, she seeks to destroy and impoverish Australia - and to undermine her gentle representative republic through her ruthless control of mass media.

How tragic.


----------



## Calliope (9 June 2012)

Fair enough Joe. It is my guess that without the invective this thread and the other Rhinehart thread on immigrant workers will run out of steam.


----------



## basilio (9 June 2012)

In the big picture its not hard to see how particular individuals who become wealthy want to keep getting bigger and bigger. In fact the single minded drive to succeed is often going to take some( not all...) tycoons into megalomania. 

Gina Rinehart is just a more extreme and now public version of this process. She has always been a totally ruthless and controlling business person. Trouble is she now believes that there should be no restraint on her capacity to do business and that any obstacle in her way needs to be dealt with accordingly.  So for her, challenging governments, employees, business competitors is all strictly business - and in that model you will do  whatever it takes.

Change the title to the Packers, Murdochs, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and there will be similar characteristics. 

To safeguard the wider good we need strong democratic institutions, fearless laws and governments that recognise  their responsibility to the whole community and broader environment.

And to keep all political parties roughly on the same track we need a community educated enough to understand these principles were critical and  expect their leaders to  not  work in the narrow interests of a few very rich people or particular sectional groups


----------



## Calliope (9 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> We do not have a capitalist system, we have something more akin to national socialism.
> 
> 
> Gina Rinehart is a terrible person who is the embodiment of what people see wrong with capitalism. I think capitalism is great and we should have more of it in Australia (and everywhere else), however people like her are an obstacle to capitalists, because they portray only the absolute worst in it.
> ...




Tragic indeed. No woman should command such wealth. She should be burned at the stake as a witch.


----------



## basilio (9 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> Fair enough Joe. It is my guess that without the invective this thread and the other Rhinehart thread on immigrant workers will run out of steam.




That's an interesting comment isn't it ? Obviously if the conversation  immediately turns to invective and abuse there could be plenty of posts -  but very little discussion about the topic. Do we just want a series of nasty to and fro comments with no discussion about the topic??  

*But - then again - perhaps reducing the discussion to this level makes sure the real questions arn't aired ?*

The key point with regard to the discussion about Gina Rinehart and her determination to extract every cent she can from her business was made by Julia Gilliard



> You (miners) don't own the minerals. I don't own the minerals. Governments only sell you the right to mine the resource, a resource we hold in trust for a sovereign people. They own it and they deserve their share."




Lets reframe the debate.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 June 2012)

She was a fine looking lass when she was younger, and she could hold her own still against some of the anorexic old pieces from the ABC, Fairfax and the Greens.

gg


----------



## Joe Blow (9 June 2012)

Enough! Lay off each other and stick to discussing the topic of the thread. I am tired of removing off-topic posts. Last warning.


----------



## Julia (9 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I don't mind her and I thought the attack on her on Q&A was appalling.  And where are all the feminists, why aren't they standing up for her when people are calling her fat and ugly?
> 
> Fairfax could certinly benefit from her expertise on the board - their loss.



+1.  Attacks on people's physical characteristics are gratuitous and irrelevant.



Joe Blow said:


> However, I think that ad hominem attacks do not do anything to further the discussion. If people want to discuss Gina Rinehart's public statements or her actions as a businessperson then fair enough. But to attack her for being overweight, rich or female is poor form and anyone who keep that sort of rubbish up can expect to be pulled up by me.



Good to know.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> She was a fine looking lass when she was younger, and she could hold her own still against some of the anorexic old pieces from the ABC, Fairfax and the Greens.
> 
> gg






Calliope said:


> Right. Yours are so repetitious. The same old theme, monstering Gina. If you've read one, you've read the lot.
> 
> Yes GG. If you are looking for a nasty piece of work, then I nominate Christine Milne.



What do either of the above posts contribute to useful discussion?  For heaven's sake, let's desist from such personal commentary.

Cudos to Basilio for at least making an attempt to reframe the debate.  Probably a waste of effort, though, sadly.


----------



## MrBurns (9 June 2012)

I find the personal attacks against Rinehart offensive, you don't know her, she's wealthy and runs a large company, is it envy ?

She is bringing in foreign workers, lawfully, and paying them award wages, do you think if she could get them here she'd bother doing that ?

She doesn't dole the money out to her children but thats a private matter, she must have her reasons, I don't see them starving do you ? and the attacks on her appearance are simply immature and very offensive, not something I would expect from people on ASF - some people were dragged up I guess.


----------



## Calliope (9 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Cudos to Basilio for at least making an attempt to reframe the debate.  Probably a waste of effort, though, sadly.




Yes cudos (sic) to basilio for trying to reframe the debate. He sees it as good versus evil. A worthy effort, and a good subject for debate. It hinges on portraying Rinehart and her ilk as the evil.

I won't join the debate. Joe can rest assured I won't be defending Rinehart or myself from any further attacks on either Rinehart thread.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 June 2012)

Joe Blow said:


> Enough! Lay off each other and stick to discussing the topic of the thread. I am tired of removing off-topic posts. Last warning.






Julia said:


> +1.  Attacks on people's physical characteristics are gratuitous and irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Good to know.
> ...




My apologies,

To you Julia and to Joe.

I was merely making the observation that none of us scrub up as well as we did when we were 18 or 20.

I was particularly unimpressed by the comments from the prissy Marr on QANDA 2 weeks ago. He is a verm.

Gina is a capitalist but she is our capitalist. She has stayed in Australia unlike Murdoch and now Tinkler or whatever that fellow is from Newcastle down south who have decamped to the USA and Singapore respectively.

She is successful. That is no reason to demonise her .

gg


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> is it envy ?




No.



MrBurns said:


> She is bringing in foreign workers, lawfully




Just because something is lawful doesn't make it right or ethical. I think many posters would have a lot to say about the carbon tax. It is lawful - but do you automatically agree with it and think it's the right path for Australia?

Let us not be hypocrites here.



MrBurns said:


> and paying them award wages, do you think if she could get them here she'd bother doing that ?




Yes, and that is precisely the reason. She does not want to pay the wages which the free market has set, so she buys up media and threatens the government with bad press if they don't grant her the ability to fly in foreign labour who are willing to work for minimum required wages, undercutting local workers.


----------



## MrBurns (9 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Just because something is lawful doesn't make it right or ethical. I think many posters would have a lot to say about the carbon tax. It is lawful - but do you automatically agree with it and think it's the right path for Australia?
> Let us not be hypocrites here.




I dont see the problem if she cant get people here to go into that hell hole and do a days work, instead of sitting round on the dole smoking weed 
If she were denying Australians work I'd agree with you but I cant see how.




> Yes, and that is precisely the reason. She does not want to pay the wages which the free market has set, so she buys up media and threatens the government with bad press if they don't grant her the ability to fly in foreign Labor who are willing to work for minimum required wages, undercutting local workers.




She hasnt bought up the media.....yet, if she tried to influence via that means it would be treasonous.

If she is undercutting Australian wages ok but if she's doing this legally all I can say is if it's wrong Gillard would change the law wouldnt she ? she's hateful and vindictive enough to do it.

The Carbon Tax is different, thats an imposition on ALL of us done as only Labor can with utter contempt for public opinion.
Thats also why personal insults against Gillard are understandable because of the anger she has created whereas Rinehart ? she doesnt even give interviews, just acts within the law and makes money.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I dont see the problem if she cant get people here to go into that hell hole and do a days work, instead of sitting round on the dole smoking weed
> If she were denying Australians work I'd agree with you but I cant see how.




She *is* denying Australians work. Don't for a second believe there aren't enough people to work in the mines, just read the importing immigrants thread for stories of how hard it is to get a job for an Aussie miner.

Furthermore, a lot of the jobs are actually in construction instead of work inside the mine itself, and the construction industry has been contracting for a while now - there is absolutely no question that there are plenty of unemployed construction workers for the taking.

Again, this is a simple issue of Gina not wanting to pay fair wages as determined by the market.



MrBurns said:


> She hasnt bought up the media.....yet, if she tried to influence via that means it would be treasonous.




Really, then what do you call The Oz? Should it's editors be sent to federal prison for treason?

Treason is not really a crime in Australia - just look at Mark Arbib.



MrBurns said:


> If she is undercutting Australian wages ok but if she's doing this legally all I can say is if it's wrong Gillard would change the law wouldnt she ? she's hateful and vindictive enough to do it.




Since when has our government ever done anything for Australians? They only seek to make money for themselves and special interest groups.



MrBurns said:


> The Carbon Tax is different




Oh it's different is it? Is it different because you don't like it? Again, let's not be hypocrites here - you are well aware that the government does *a lot* of things which are bad for our economy and our people. Importing foreign labour because the country's richest person doesn't feel like paying fair wages is no exception.



MrBurns said:


> thats an imposition on ALL of us done as only Labor can with utter contempt for public opinion.
> Thats also why personal insults against Gillard are understandable because of the anger she has created whereas Rinehart ? she doesnt even give interviews, just acts within the law and makes money.




Outright hypocrisy. They are both very bad, and they both to bad things to Australia.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 June 2012)

Whatever you guys are smokin on this thread ain't doing any good to your cognitive processes.

I have rarely read a greater load of bollocks in all my born days.


gg


----------



## MrBurns (9 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> She *is* denying Australians work. Don't for a second believe there aren't enough people to work in the mines, just read the importing immigrants thread for stories of how hard it is to get a job for an Aussie miner.



I don't believe that Swan and Gillard wouldnt stop her in her tracks if she was doing anything to prevent Australians getting work.
It would be all over the papers and they would try to make big heros out of themselves in the process as usual.



> Really, then what do you call The Oz? Should it's editors be sent to federal prison for treason?
> Treason is not really a crime in Australia - just look at Mark Arbib.




Ok perhaps the wrong word was used but it would be so obvious if the editorials changed after her buying in that the paper would lose all credibility.



> Oh it's different is it? Is it different because you don't like it? Again, let's not be hypocrites here - you are well aware that the government does *a lot* of things which are bad for our economy and our people. Importing foreign labour because the country's richest person doesn't feel like paying fair wages is no exception.




Using personal insults against someone who has cost jobs and our surplus is an understandable part of the anger that results BUT using personal insults against Rinehart for going about her business ? She and her kind are keeping us afloat at present and making disparaging remarks about her weight is just childish.

With Gillard however it's our only way of protesting and venting, as pointless as it is , before the election.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I don't believe that Swan and Gillard wouldnt stop her in her tracks if she was doing anything to prevent Australians getting work.
> It would be all over the papers and they would try to make big heros out of themselves in the process as usual.




There's a lot of problems here. I understand your assertions though, but you must understand that they aren't the populist anti-business types they are cracked up to be. In reality they will take it up the rump from business no different to any other party.

A better perspective is that they wanted to avoid another controversial confrontation with more miners who are far wealthier than the government, and can command far more advertising money to spread their message.

There is no doubt that ALP is either entirely complicit to this or (less likely, but possible) were formally but privately threatened with more media campaigns against them. At a time when their polling is down, they obviously would want to avoid something like that.

Surely you must admit that a great deal of discussion has to have taken place between the government and Rinehart because this happened, what do you imagine they talked about? The fact that there are countless unemployed people in the country looking for work is no secret.



MrBurns said:


> Ok perhaps the wrong word was used but it would be so obvious if the editorials changed after her buying in that the paper would lose all credibility.




Would it really? It's not something that would happen overnight, but Rinehart is after *two* seats on Fairfax's board, and there is no question that the message and more importantly _spin_ would, overtime, change.

The presence of News Ltd in Australia shows that Australians have no problem with biased media, and accept it willingly.



MrBurns said:


> Using personal insults against someone who has cost jobs and our surplus is an understandable part of the anger that results BUT using personal insults against Rinehart for going about her business ? She and her kind are keeping us afloat at present and making disparaging remarks about her weight is just childish.




I disagree. Mining employs basically nobody compared to every other industry, and as a result of mining our dollar is greatly speculated upon - and it has been destroying every other industry for a very long time now.

Mining is like a cancer that is destroying our economy form the inside out.

And Gina is not a mere bystander, she is not just going about her business - she approached the government and lobbied (and possibly threatened) them in order for her to be allowed to import foreign labour at a time when our industries are in contraction and people are losing their jobs. I cannot - nor should anyone, look upon this lightly.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I disagree. Mining employs basically nobody compared to every other industry, and as a result of mining our dollar is greatly speculated upon - and it has been destroying every other industry for a very long time now.
> 
> Mining is like a cancer that is destroying our economy form the inside out.
> 
> And Gina is not a mere bystander, she is not just going about her business - she approached the government and lobbied (and possibly threatened) them in order for her to be allowed to import foreign labour at a time when our industries are in contraction and people are losing their jobs. I cannot - nor should anyone, look upon this lightly.




Sit in your fading jocks in front of the mirror and repeat what you have just posted.

Read Ovid, and Caesar and delight in their finding of assets that can be mined.

Your education is limited.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (9 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> There's a lot of problems here. I understand your assertions though, but you must understand that they aren't the populist anti-business types they are cracked up to be. In reality they will take it up the rump from business no different to any other party.
> 
> A better perspective is that they wanted to avoid another controversial confrontation with more miners who are far wealthier than the government, and can command far more advertising money to spread their message.
> 
> ...




I still find it hard to believe that Swan and Gillard would forgo a free kick if Rinehart was depriving Aussies of a job, it would be too hard to resist and she (Gillard) would have everyones support.



> Would it really? It's not something that would happen overnight, but Rinehart is after *two* seats on Fairfax's board, and there is no question that the message and more importantly _spin_ would, overtime, change.




Must admit it seems strange that she would bother at all, there could only be one reason so I guess you're right.
Now THAT takes forethought and business nouse you have to admit.


----------



## hja (9 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> She was a fine looking lass when she was younger, and she could hold her own still against some of the anorexic old pieces from the ABC, Fairfax and the Greens.
> 
> gg




Playboy pics or it didn't happen.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I still find it hard to believe that Swan and Gillard would forgo a free kick if Rinehart was depriving Aussies of a job, it would be too hard to resist and she (Gillard) would have everyones support.




I realise this, but you incorrectly believe the world to be a good and just place where politicians do the right thing because the people will support them.

In reality they are all corrupt parasites, who dare not upset mining billionaires who can easily spend 100 times more on advertising in every single media medium.

This is nothing new either, just look at the whole ALP fiasco where mining dollars forced them to change leaders and completely bastardised the mining tax. ALP support plummeted - under no circumstances do they want a repeat of that.

It doesn't matter how right you think they might appear, it is all for nothing if mining companies put 10 ads per hour during whatever crap people watch these days on TV, in an attempt to discredit the government. They have done this in the past and it has worked very well.

The sad reality is, whoever has the most money dictates popular opinion.


----------



## hja (9 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I realise this, but you incorrectly believe the world to be a good and just place where politicians do the right thing because the people will support them.
> 
> In reality they are all corrupt parasites, who dare not upset mining billionaires who can easily spend 100 times more on advertising in every single media medium.




All? This isn't Waziristan and Julia isn't exactly Putin.

Is there any other point of going from one to extreme to the other, other than to illustrate it?


----------



## MrBurns (9 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I realise this, but you incorrectly believe the world to be a good and just place where politicians do the right thing because the people will support them.
> 
> In reality they are all corrupt parasites, *who dare not upset mining billionaires who can easily spend 100 times more on advertising in every single media medium*.
> 
> .




They've already done this with Palmer so thats not a valid argument.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 June 2012)

hja said:


> All? This isn't Waziristan and Julia isn't exactly Putin.




Putin has taken all of the money from certain prominent Russian billionaires, put them in jail and nationalised their mining companies. If Gillard did that with Rinehart and Palmer, that would be ****ing awesome.

While I am not suggesting that Putin is not corrupt, I would actually prefer his style of corruption to what goes on in this country. The Australian government is pathetically weak and completely powerless to deliver any good outcome for Australians at all. They are completely and utterly incapable of standing up to billionaires and their corporations which are destroying the country.

Back in Russia, they taxed Yukos until the company went bankrupt and was forced to nationalise. I would love to see that kind of resolve from the Australian government.



hja said:


> Is there any other point of going from one to extreme to the other, other than to illustrate it?




Not sure what you mean here.



MrBurns said:


> They've already done this with Palmer so thats not a valid argument.




Sort of. Palmer was the one to start his attack on the government wasn't he? He fired the gun first. Rinehart is seemingly smarter, choosing instead to make backroom deals with the government in return for them doing whatever she wants.


----------



## explod (9 June 2012)

Good post Starcraftmazter.

The biggest and fittest bull owns the herd.  

The most money Rules and delegates the servants to make the rules.

Its called *evolution* and the poor can never make it.


----------



## drsmith (9 June 2012)

Whatever people may think, she has to be an improvement on her step-mum.


----------



## drsmith (9 June 2012)

Joe Blow said:


> Enough! Lay off each other and stick to discussing the topic of the thread. I am tired of removing off-topic posts. Last warning.



I blame the government. 

They started this nasty class warfare.


----------



## hja (9 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Putin has taken all of the money from certain prominent Russian billionaires, put them in jail and nationalised their mining companies. If Gillard did that with Rinehart and Palmer, that would be ****ing awesome.
> 
> While I am not suggesting that Putin is not corrupt, I would actually prefer his style of corruption to what goes on in this country. The Australian government is pathetically weak and completely powerless to deliver any good outcome for Australians at all. They are completely and utterly incapable of standing up to billionaires and their corporations which are destroying the country.
> 
> Back in Russia, they taxed Yukos until the company went bankrupt and was forced to nationalise. I would love to see that kind of resolve from the Australian government.



Ha, yeah, ok.

Anyway... the difference is, whether you were a millionaire or of the hoi polloi, living in Russia, you wouldn't be able to express such an opinion or walk that talk on the streets without fear of being rounded up and thrown in the slammer!


----------



## gav (9 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I don't mind her and I thought the attack on her on Q&A was appalling.  And where are all the feminists, why aren't they standing up for her when people are calling her fat and ugly?
> 
> Fairfax could certinly benefit from her expertise on the board - their loss.




I totally agree. And despite being posted on a Lefty blog, I thought this piece summed up the Q&A episode rather well:
http://newswithnipples.com/2012/05/29/the-casual-misogyny-of-qanda/



basilio said:


> Change the title to the Packers, Murdochs, Bill Gates, *Steve Jobs* and there will be similar characteristics.




Surprising that you included Steve Jobs in that group.  Despite having many similarities to the others mentioned,  Jobs was (and still is) worshipped by the masses that would harshly criticize the others mentioned. They conveniently ignore the horrendous conditions of the Chinese factories in which Apple products are made (but still tweet from their iPhones about the "evils" of capitalism).


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 June 2012)

hja said:


> Anyway... the difference is, whether you were a millionaire or of the hoi polloi, living in Russia, you wouldn't be able to express such an opinion or walk that talk on the streets without fear of being rounded up and thrown in the slammer!




Completely untrue, one prominent Russian businessman even ran for president against Putin. Last time I checked he hasn't been rounded up and thrown into the slammer.


----------



## Julia (9 June 2012)

drsmith said:


> I blame the government.
> 
> They started this nasty class warfare.



They did indeed.  Wayne Swann in particular.
Once was known as biting the hand that feeds you.

Not once in this thread or in any other which apparently takes so much pleasure in demonising one particular person who brings much employment and wealth to this country can I find any reference to the almost 7000 Australian workers who will be hired amongst this latest project of Ms Rinehart's.

Might be something to think about amongst those of you hysterical and short sighted people who suggest we should export Ms Rinehart herself.

She is running a business, not a welfare agency.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Not once in this thread or in any other which apparently takes so much pleasure in demonising one particular person who brings much employment and wealth to this country can I find any reference to the almost 7000 Australian workers who will be hired amongst this latest project of Ms Rinehart's.




If it wasn't her, it would be someone else. She herself has done nothing unique to employ those people, whoever owns the land with the iron and coal would have employed them regardless. She has done nothing special or anything that someone else wouldn't.

Except of course importing foreign labour.



Julia said:


> She is running a business, not a welfare agency.




Oh okey, so employing Australians how counts as welfare, yep sure that makes perfect sense.


----------



## MrBurns (9 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> If it wasn't her, it would be someone else. She herself has done nothing unique to employ those people, whoever owns the land with the iron and coal would have employed them regardless. She has done nothing special or anything that someone else wouldn't.
> Except of course importing foreign labour.
> Oh okey, so employing Australians how counts as welfare, yep sure that makes perfect sense.




Get a grip SCM, Rinehart is carrying this country along with the other miners and dopey Swan and Gillard are living off her efforts.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Get a grip SCM, Rinehart is carrying this country along with the other miners and dopey Swan and Gillard are living off her efforts.




More like destroying the country. Thanks to them our dollar is par with the US and our economy uncompetitive.

Again, they are doing nothing special. They do not invent anything, design anything, they do nothing unique or anything that someone else can't do. There's no reason not to nationalise the entire mining industry - it's so easy to dig stuff out of the ground that even the government can't screw that up.


----------



## MrBurns (9 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> More like destroying the country. Thanks to them our dollar is par with the US and our economy uncompetitive.
> 
> Again, they are doing nothing special. They do not invent anything, design anything, they do nothing unique or anything that someone else can't do. There's no reason not to nationalise the entire mining industry - it's so easy to dig stuff out of the ground that even the government can't screw that up.




Sorry pal you're not making a lot of sense.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Sorry pal you're not making a lot of sense.




Not sure what there isn't to understand. Two simple facts;

1. Mining industry is causing forex speculators to push our currency to much higher valuations than it deserves, destroying every single export-facing industry.

2. People who own mining companies like Rinehart and Palmer do not do anything special, and they have not done anything anyone else isn't capable of. In Rinehart's case, she got lucky with her inheritance - she hasn't actually done anything herself. Regardless of who is in charge, ore will always be dug up and sold, no mining executive has every done anything substantial.


There is one other thing I forgot to mention earlier - in regards to why Gillard and Swan would allow the importation of foreign labour. Another good reason is to import more people to prop up the failing housing bubble, and it's a pretty big one.


----------



## noco (10 June 2012)

This whole thread and some the posts that are attached is nothing more than disgusting.

What is it with some of you ASF members? 

Gina Rhinehart has been a successful woman. So what?

Are some of you jealous of her achievments or are you just mentally sick?

Joe, please remove this thread. It makes me want to throw up. It is so nauseating having to read such dribble.


----------



## johenmo (10 June 2012)

The inference from this and the migrant worker thread is that the size of the person is a factor into how a person behaves.  If GH was a beautiful perfectly proportioned woman who could grace the front pages of a magazine BUT everything else remained the same then nothing, in essence, would be different.

So references to a person's weight or looks adds nothing to the debate.  All it does it create an image of unbalanced rant who is more interested in personal attacks rather than dealing with facts.  Yes, yes, there will be facts (real and imagined) tossed into the debate by such a person but they will viewed as the ravings of a lunatic.

There have been many charismatic, good-looking despots & others who manipulated others for their own benefit.  There are many families who have become dysfunctional for a lot less coin on the table than in the GH family.
If the law allows what many see to be immoral or harmful to Oz then shame on the law-makers for acting to right the wrong & shame on those who elect them (us) for not doing something about getting it changed.

I'm interested in topics like importing migrant workers, altruistic use of wealth (esp. in MY direction, hint hint Gina!) but not interested in vitriol that contributes nothing to the topic except to possibly create a felling of satisfaction in those who do so.

Of course - it could all be trolling in which case no amount of reasoned argument will change it.


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

You can learn a fair bit about Gina buy the way she treats her Children - how she attempts to control them using any means.

Here is an example.




> The bitter battle between Gina Rinehart and her three eldest children has escalated, with Australia's richest person threatening to withdraw the ''ransom insurance policy'' she holds for the family unless they agree to keep details of legal action private.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act...m-insurance-20120205-1t8p1.html#ixzz1xL9O0mnA




I mean how callous - threatning to essentially risks these guys lives more than they already are considering her wealth.

And in their own words -



> In a statement issued on Friday, Mr Hancock said he and his sisters remained highly concerned about the safety of themselves and their young children.
> 
> ''I can support my wife and children in a modest manner from the work I do, but I can't provide the level of funds required to deal with security issues - real or imagined - associated with being the son of a woman worth more than $20billion,'' he said.
> ''When my mother buys a few hundred million dollars worth of Fairfax, it's going to draw some attention.
> ...




What a nasty nasty piece of work she can be .....


There was even grand evil plans to bankrupt her own children - I mean behave like this to your own blood , just imagine how she could treat a stranger - dont think id like to do business with this individual!



> The four adult children of Australia’s richest person, Gina Rinehart, may not receive their multibillion-dollar inheritance for 56 years, after their mother secretly extended the expiry date of a family trust.
> Mrs Rinehart also *threatened to “bankrupt” her children* last year, while claiming they enjoyed a privileged existence of “water views”, private jets and “endless holiday travels”.




http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1206_afr3.pdf


----------



## MrBurns (10 June 2012)

noco said:


> This whole thread and some the posts that are attached is nothing more than disgusting.
> 
> What is it with some of you ASF members?
> 
> ...




+1

I think this forum should be returned to a place much more pleasant and interesting as it once was otherwise the best contributors may not hang around.


----------



## Logique (10 June 2012)

I think we all recognize the social and economic philosophy that spawned the first two posts in the thread, and we know where it leads. 

Joe acted appropriately.

All I know is, people travelled from around the world to hammer at the Berlin Wall, as the denizens of the east fled, like so many lifers unexpectedly paroled.


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Not sure what there isn't to understand. Two simple facts;
> 
> 1. Mining industry is causing forex speculators to push our currency to much higher valuations than it deserves, destroying every single export-facing industry.
> 
> ...





Yes I fail to see why the mining is everything crew cant see this.

The Worlds Credit boom artificially boosted demand and our dollar which inturn ripped the back side out of all our other industries - for example look how dead tourism is now and we have such an awesome country to visit but they arnt coming !

Mining is a very important part of our economy but relying on it explicitly will end in tears ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2012)

noco said:


> This whole thread and some the posts that are attached is nothing more than disgusting.
> 
> What is it with some of you ASF members?
> 
> ...




+1

gg


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

Seems to me that some people worship the ground she walks on for no other reason that her wealth ? Envious of her I assume.

Can anyone link anything that shes done charitable with her money ? I cant find anything , seems she just hoardes money perhaps?

She tears minerals and resources out of our earth, these resources belong to Australia and as the PM said she and others have a licence to extract them. The final straw for her public perception has been giving away thousands of our countries jobs as the economy worsens.

Many of you try to paint this as a " class " issue which it clearly isnt - go start threads on any number of Billionaires and you will probably get nothing but praise for their innovation, resourcefullness etc etc - but not for Gina she has made her own bed shaped by her actions not circumstance.


----------



## Julia (10 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> +1
> 
> I think this forum should be returned to a place much more pleasant and interesting as it once was otherwise the best contributors may not hang around.



+1.  Myself very much included.



noco said:


> This whole thread and some the posts that are attached is nothing more than disgusting.



+1.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> +1
> 
> gg



+2.  And johenmo makes a valid point also.

This thread, imo, is an all time low for this forum.
No wonder so many of the great posters of the past, viz Prospector, Duckman, Cuttlefish et al, have walked away.


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

The truth hurts for people sometimes.

Most comments here have been backed by facts or atleast linked backed to other media articles.


I dont see what your all upset about. I bet you all watch worse soap operas on TV - the Rinehart sopa opera is just a very public one and rightly so , we are all entitled to comment on such public debacles.

The other thing that does my head in is that most of you who support her giving away Australian jobs absolutely bag out and belittle unemployed people in the welfare state.


----------



## hja (10 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Completely untrue, one prominent Russian businessman even ran for president against Putin. Last time I checked he hasn't been rounded up and thrown into the slammer.




No, that's not typical.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (10 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is no need to shout, mate.
> 
> Who is "Our".




There is when people have absolutely no clue, yet pretend they do. "Ooh herp derp you all hate gina because she's richer than you" - yeh, no - that has nothing to do with it, so stop that propaganda nonsense, and stop these worthless attempts at trying to take the discussion off-topic.

"We" simply refers to the people who take an issue with Rinehart because of her importing of foreign labour to steal Aussie jobs.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> There is when people have absolutely no clue, yet pretend they do. "Ooh herp derp you all hate gina because she's richer than you" - yeh, no - that has nothing to do with it, so stop that propaganda nonsense, and stop these worthless attempts at trying to take the discussion off-topic.
> 
> "We" simply refers to the people who take an issue with Rinehart because of her importing of foreign labour to steal Aussie jobs.




I feel you need to be burped mate.

Ooh herp derp can lead to piles.

My impression of this brouha, was that Gina was importing 2000 or so workers, with critical skills in to critical jobs, who she could not source in Australia.

This would provide a surge in her mines, which would provide more jobs of a lower skill rate suitable for Australians with those lower skills.

gg


----------



## Starcraftmazter (10 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> My impression of this brouha, was that Gina was importing 2000 or so workers, with critical skills in to critical jobs, who she could not source in Australia.
> 
> This would provide a surge in her mines, which would provide more jobs of a lower skill rate suitable for Australians with those lower skills.




What critical skills? Last I heard there are tens of thousands of construction workers losing their job all over the country due to the housing bubble - the very same jobs she allegedly can't get enough labour for.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> What critical skills? Last I heard there are tens of thousands of construction workers losing their job all over the country due to the housing bubble - the very same jobs she allegedly can't get enough labour for.




Mate,

You have never had to employ people for a project.

There are people there, but they live in Welfare states like SA, NSW. Vic. and TAS, and prefer to go to the footy of a Saturday, rather than work.

gg


----------



## Starcraftmazter (10 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mate,
> 
> You have never had to employ people for a project.
> 
> There are people there, but they live in Welfare states like SA, NSW. Vic. and TAS, and prefer to go to the footy of a Saturday, rather than work.




If you need labour from another state, then it is your responsibility as a business to seek out those workers and offer them assistance to relocate.

However from what people have posted in the other thread about migrant workers, it seems there is no shortage of people looking for work on mining sites like Roy Hill.


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

I love how people in these threads to support their personal position Quickly turn on their Aussie Brothers labelling them as bludgers and the like. Advocating foreigners to take these jobs so Rinehart makes more money then they go to the immigration thread an bag boat people escaping impoverished lives as people who take Australian resources and jobs ....

Im sure I can speak for most working AUstralian if you were made redundant and have gone from 1500 a week to 200 a week on the dole you would be pretty damn keen to get back earning and supporting your family.

Seems this fact doesnt support the pro Rineharts agenda though.


very amusing reading really.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (10 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Im sure I can speak for most working AUstralian if you were made redundant and have gone from 1500 a week to 200 a week on the dole you would be pretty damn keen to get back earning and supporting your family.




This is what really gets me - it seems like people here simply are not aware of the concept of labour mobility. In fact I can speak a bit to this, as I have a friend who moved states so that he can work in the mines to support his family.

It absolutely is happening, and there are plenty of people looking to take up various jobs in the mining industry - the problem is that people like Gina Rinehart refuse to pay them fair wages, and want to instead import foreign labour to undercut them.

Any idea of a "labour shortage" in the mining industry is a joke. The only profession which there is definitively a shortage of are doctors - especially in rural areas, and even that's not all that bad.

To think that Australia doesn't have enough workers when unemployment is 8.2% and underemployment is a record high of 11%.

These mining companies are very happy to spend money on international flights to import foreigners, but they couldn't be arsed spending the same money on a 6 month training course for those locals who wish to learn. Not that I am implying there aren't enough skilled workers here - considering that mining employs basically nobody (1.7% of the workforce according to ABS).

A national disgrace.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mate,
> 
> You have never had to employ people for a project.
> 
> ...






Starcraftmazter said:


> If you need labour from another state, then it is your responsibility as a business to seek out those workers and offer them assistance to relocate.
> 
> However from what people have posted in the other thread about migrant workers, it seems there is no shortage of people looking for work on mining sites like Roy Hill.






numbercruncher said:


> I love how people in these threads to support their personal position Quickly turn on their Aussie Brothers labelling them as bludgers and the like. Advocating foreigners to take these jobs so Rinehart makes more money then they go to the immigration thread an bag boat people escaping impoverished lives as people who take Australian resources and jobs ....
> 
> Im sure I can speak for most working AUstralian if you were made redundant and have gone from 1500 a week to 200 a week on the dole you would be pretty damn keen to get back earning and supporting your family.
> 
> ...




I stand by my comments.

You can lead a Southerner to water, but you cannot make him or her drink.

Lazy bastards, not willing to relocate, and funded by a rich welfare system for doing bugger all.

gg


----------



## Starcraftmazter (10 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Lazy bastards, not willing to relocate, and funded by a rich welfare system for doing bugger all.




What proof do you have of this? 


And one more point I'd like to make is that Australia is greatly hurt by this. Once mining is over, these foreign workers would have gained citizenship and be on welfare for the rest of their lives - and at no point in time did they provide a benefit to our economy.

The government would get far more tax receipts if local labour was hired for fair wages, it would also have to pay less welfare money, and there would be less people in the country to bid up asset prices and put further pressure on inadequate infrastructure.


There is simply no benefit to this for anyone - the only people who benefit are billionaires like Gina Rinehart who are selling out our future. Dirty rotten bastards - they should be put in prison for the rest of their worthless lives and their money given back to the Australian people to whom it rightfully belongs, through a universal citizen dividend.


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I stand by my comments.
> 
> You can lead a Southerner to water, but you cannot make him or her drink.
> 
> ...





No need to relocate - fly in fly out - I spent most of last year doing exactly that (not to mines though), easy peezy millions of people have mobile careers anyway. Thousands do it to mines now and thousands are well trained and qualified waiting for an opportunity

Its 100pc about more ca$h for Rinehart no matter how lazy you want to try paint an entire workforce/race/culture.

We do respect your opinion but it isnt really standing as credible in my opinion.

If you feel that way about  a handful of people on the Dole, I would hate to think how you feel about the millions extracting aged pensions every week for the rest of their lives because they didnt budget and squandered their money instead of saving.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> There is simply no benefit to this for anyone - the only people who benefit are billionaires like Gina Rinehart who are selling out our future. Dirty rotten bastards - they should be put in prison for the rest of their worthless lives and their money given back to the Australian people to whom it rightfully belongs, through a universal citizen dividend.




Mate,

I'll dip out of this conversation, logic and argument may be less useful for you than therapy.

gg


----------



## basilio (10 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> What proof do you have of this?
> 
> There is simply no benefit to this for anyone - the only people who benefit are billionaires like Gina Rinehart who are selling out our future. Dirty rotten bastards - they should be put in prison for the rest of their worthless lives and their money given back to the Australian people to whom it rightfully belongs, through a universal citizen dividend.




Come on Star.  Just mean and unnecessary. 

Now *if *Gina was found guilty of some criminal behavior that warranted stiff fines and a substantial prison sentence -  there would be no way on earth she would do time.

Interesting thought really.  Would anyone here disagree with my comment ?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (10 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mate,
> 
> I'll dip out of this conversation, logic and argument may be less useful for you than therapy.




I'm an engineer, far more logical than most others here.


----------



## basilio (10 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I'm an engineer, far more logical than most others here.




Indeed you might be.

Just doesn't necessarily come across in some of your posts...


----------



## jank (10 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> What proof do you have of this?
> 
> 
> And one more point I'd like to make is that Australia is greatly hurt by this. *Once mining is over, these foreign workers would have gained citizenship and be on welfare for the rest of their lives - and at no point in time did they provide a benefit to our economy.*
> ...




One: If you are on a temporary visa you cannot at any point in time apply for your citizenship, its impossible. The rules dont allow it unless you are a PERMANENT resident. Go look at DIAC. The roy hill migrants will be offered temporary 457 visas, you cannot jump to citizenship from a 457 visa.

Two: There are numerous reports and statistics that state that migrants are NET contributors to the Australian economy. Remember, everyone pays tax at the end of the day.

Please use facts and read up on what you are saying rather then using pub talk

I can't believe that the mods are allowing such xenophobic talk on this forum. A lot of people are using this issue as veil for their xenophobia.


----------



## Calliope (10 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mate,
> 
> I'll dip out of this conversation, logic and argument may be less useful for you than therapy.
> 
> gg




About time GG. It's taken you a while to realize that responding to these provocative posters just gives the Rhinehaters further traction for their grand-standing. Like show-off children, what they hate most is being ignored.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (10 June 2012)

jank said:


> One: If you are on a temporary visa you cannot at any point in time apply for your citizenship, its impossible. The rules dont allow it unless you are a PERMANENT resident. Go look at DIAC. The roy hill migrants will be offered temporary 457 visas, you cannot jump to citizenship from a 457 visa.




But they can apply for a permanent visa and gain citizenship. Your point is moot.



jank said:


> Two: There are numerous reports and statistics that state that migrants are NET contributors to the Australian economy. Remember, everyone pays tax at the end of the day.




That is false.

Fact 1: Employing local labour will result in workers getting higher wages and *paying more tax*.

Fact 2: Local labour will most likely spend money within the local economy, while foreign labour is most likely to send money back to their relatives, *not benefiting the local economy*

Fact 3: Every single foreigner employed in Australia is *one additional Australian on welfare* or underemployed.

Fact 4: Unnecessary additional people in the country put strain on our 3rd world infrastructure, making lives worse for all and lowering transportation efficiency, thereby creating a *net drag on productivity*.



jank said:


> Please use facts and read up on what you are saying rather then using pub talk




I don't even go to pubs.



jank said:


> I can't believe that the mods are allowing such xenophobic talk on this forum. A lot of people are using this issue as veil for their xenophobia.




*Xenophobia: The opinion that Australian jobs should go to Australians.*


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> About time GG. It's taken you a while to realize that responding to these provocative posters just gives the Rhinehaters further traction for their grand-standing. Like show-off children, what they hate most is being ignored.




Its a nice feeling being on team justice and so far be absolutely winning this debate hands down.

You guys are obviously very very short on any hard facts to support team Rinehart/greed and resort to personal insult to detract from the subject at hand.

Only reason I would leave this thread is for lack of intelligent counter argument.

Public opinion shows us she is one of Australian societies most disliked figures - but she does have the wealth to perhaps change this perception someday.

I do believe everyone has the ability to change, but just often need help getting there.


----------



## jank (10 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> But they can apply for a permanent visa and gain citizenship. Your point is moot.




Yes, they can apply but that is another process entirely thus you are incorrect. Not every temp visa holder can become a permanent resident as you have to satisfy DIAC requirements. You said they it was an automatic process that is a given that every worker would be an Australian so you are wrong. If they are standard labour's then they cannot get PR as they are not skilled. If they do get PR that means they are an engineer or a skilled worker. You cant have it both ways.







Starcraftmazter said:


> Fact 1: Employing local labour will result in workers getting higher wages and *paying more tax*.
> 
> Fact 2: Local labour will most likely spend money within the local economy, while foreign labour is most likely to send money back to their relatives, *not benefiting the local economy*
> 
> ...




Lots of "facts" but no proof. Cant get your head out of starcraft to find them?





Starcraftmazter said:


> *Xenophobia: The opinion that Australian jobs should go to Australians.*




Yes, a fear of foreigners, you exhibit lots of characters of that of a person who is xenophobic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia


----------



## JTLP (10 June 2012)

What's with this non love affair of mining and the high AUD? It's brought great prosperity to this nation and propelled us light years ahead in standards of living; bringing in fantastic revenue for successive governments and putting Australia on the world stage. 

As for Gina; nobody here knows her personally any slagging of Labor and co is met with 'media twists and bashing' but Rinehart is fair game?

I think people need to remember this great quote (all Australians):



> it's not what your country can do for you...but what you can do for your country


----------



## Macquack (10 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> The inference from this and the migrant worker thread is that the size of the person is a factor into how a person behaves.
> So references to a person's weight or looks adds nothing to the debate.  All it does it create an image of unbalanced rant who is more interested in personal attacks rather than dealing with facts.




You are correct, however I am sure Gina Reinhart can look after herself.

The same posters here who say you can not criticise their chosen one are the same posters who beat the crap out of Julia Gillard on other threads.

Reinhart is fair game and a *broad *target.


----------



## MrBurns (10 June 2012)

Macquack said:


> You are correct, however I am sure Gina Reinhart can look after herself.
> 
> The same posters here who say you can not criticise their chosen one are the same posters who beat the crap out of Julia Gillard on other threads.
> 
> Reinhart is fair game and a *broad *target.




Rinehart has done nothing to you unlike Gillard who has blown all the money and now lumbers us with a Carbon Tax.

Rinehart is not fair game at all, she's a private individual who employs thousands, but I guess it's pointless trying to explain the bleeding obvious to someone who denigreates people for the sake of it.

If I were her I'd employ detectives to locate you then pay the Bandidos motorbike gang to pay you a visit and have a quiet word.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2012)

Macquack said:


> You are correct, however I am sure Gina Reinhart can look after herself.
> 
> The same posters here who say you can not criticise their chosen one are the same posters who beat the crap out of Julia Gillard on other threads.
> 
> Reinhart is fair game and a *broad *target.




Disgraceful, Macquack, disgraceful.

The PM needs to be treated with respect.

The ABC morons, QANDA and morons in general comment on Julia Gillard's physical characteristics. 

Demonising Gina R because of her physical appearance is not on.

gg


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> If I were her I'd employ detectives to locate you then pay the Bandidos motorbike gang to pay you a visit and have a quiet word.




You need to tone the indirect threats down cowboy.

Doesnt reflect kindly on the type of person you are at all.


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

> it's not what your country can do for you...but what you can do for your country




That really doesnt fit in a thread that is partially discussing Gina giving away thousands of our job just because she has a permit to mine our minerals.

This same person supports some dodgy northern economic exclusion zone that will shaft Australia even more.


----------



## MrBurns (10 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> You need to tone the indirect threats down cowboy.
> 
> Doesnt reflect kindly on the type of person you are at all.




I think you need to get a sense of humour sport, I'm not even sure what the bandidos charge


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I think you need to get a sense of humour sport, I'm not even sure what the bandidos charge




Ok it was a joke , I get it now


----------



## Calliope (10 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Its a nice feeling being on team justice and so far be absolutely winning this debate hands down.




On man does not constitute a team.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Rinehart has done nothing to you unlike Gillard who has blown all the money and now lumbers us with a Carbon Tax.
> 
> Rinehart is not fair game at all, she's a private individual who employs thousands, but I guess it's pointless trying to explain the bleeding obvious to someone who denigreates people for the sake of it.
> 
> If I were her I'd employ detectives to locate you then pay the Bandidos motorbike gang to pay you a visit and have a quiet word.




May I just say that I have ridden on charity Poker Runs with the Bandidos and have found them to have a distinctly prescient view of the markets.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (10 June 2012)

Now all the whiners can go for it, with any luck you can be in the pits by the end of the week.

I can see them now whistling, tapping their feet and edging toward the door........to hide 



> Australians to get first pick of mining jobs
> Updated June 10, 2012 14:56:12
> 
> A website will offer Australian workers jobs in the resources sector, before companies can bring in overseas staff. BHP boss says Australians less willing to relocateRelated Story: Story: Survey shows Australians support foreign  Under a new Federal Government initiative, mining companies will have to post job vacancies on a website for Australian job-hunters before seeking foreign workers.
> ...



http://www.jobsearch.gov.au/resourcesectorjobs


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

Shows we have been right on this issue all along.

Hopefully Rinehart gets audited on this issue to make sure no funny business is happening.

Well some budding Miners should be happy at not having to compete with low paid 457s.


----------



## Julia (10 June 2012)

JTLP said:


> What's with this non love affair of mining and the high AUD? It's brought great prosperity to this nation and propelled us light years ahead in standards of living; bringing in fantastic revenue for successive governments and putting Australia on the world stage.
> 
> As for Gina; nobody here knows her personally any slagging of Labor and co is met with 'media twists and bashing' but Rinehart is fair game?
> 
> I think people need to remember this great quote (all Australians):





> it's not what your country can do for you...but what you can do for your country



+1.



Macquack said:


> You are correct, however I am sure Gina Reinhart can look after herself.
> 
> The same posters here who say you can not criticise their chosen one are the same posters who beat the crap out of Julia Gillard on other threads.
> 
> Reinhart is fair game and a *broad *target.



Criticising government policy and Ms Gillard's broken promise re the carbon tax is an entirely different matter to laying into a private businesswoman with respect to her physical appearance and her relationships with her family, especially when you are in no position to know anything at all about the latter.

It's unnecessary, offensive, and adds nothing to the debate.

I'm not especially directing the above toward you Macquack.  Rather to those who have relentlessly, even after warnings, continued their vitriolic remarks which indicate perhaps a lack of reasonable vocabulary in addition to questionable taste.


----------



## Julia (10 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> You guys are obviously very very short on any hard facts to support team Rinehart/greed and resort to personal insult to detract from the subject at hand.



That about takes the cake for pure irony, given you, along with SCM, have pretty much led the way in gratuitous insulting remarks.


----------



## hja (10 June 2012)

I think it's normal for someone of such clout, to be in the lime light, attracting attention to her public life and to some extent, her private life. This is just the way it is for someone with a celebrity-like status.

Whether they like it or not, we will take an interest in their affairs especially as they are longer reaching than your average pleb and will affect some aspect of politics and society. Buying a football club on the side, for example, or giving interviews is like providing an entry pass into a part of your life.

As for making fun of personal appearance, like John Howard's supposed short height or Bob Hawke's eyebrows, has always been a part and parcel of public life, not that it's right... though it is becoming less PC.


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

Julia said:


> That about takes the cake for pure irony, given you, along with SCM, have pretty much led the way in gratuitous insulting remarks.




Seriously you guys are the ones harping on about the feedback posted on the ABC article - wasnt us that bought up the fat and ugly comment was linked from ABC Q&A. The public broadly dont like her and its obviously mostly of her own doing.


----------



## MrBurns (10 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> . The public broadly dont like her and its obviously mostly of her own doing.




I dont think thats true at all, the public couldn't care less any more than they do about any head of any other company in Australia. They have no reason to dislike her.....


----------



## sails (10 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Seriously you guys are the ones harping on about the feedback posted on the ABC article - wasnt us that bought up the fat and ugly comment was linked from ABC Q&A. The public broadly dont like her and its obviously mostly of her own doing.





lol - and yet you don't realise that the MAJORITY of voters don't like Gillard and it's obviously mostly of her own doing?  

I'm not so sure it's the public that don't like Gina - more like a few lefties who appeared on Q&A.

What was said against Gina was pretty low, imo.  She has done more for this country's economics than Gillard and Swan could ever dream of, imo.


----------



## Julia (10 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I dont think thats true at all, the public couldn't care less any more than they do about any head of any other company in Australia. They have no reason to dislike her.....






sails said:


> lol - and yet you don't realise that the MAJORITY of voters don't like Gillard and it's obviously mostly of her own doing?
> 
> I'm not so sure it's the public that don't like Gina - more like a few lefties who appeared on Q&A.
> 
> What was said against Gina was pretty low, imo.  She has done more for this country's economics than Gillard and Swan could ever dream of, imo.



+1 to both.


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

They have heaps of reasons to dislike - just because a few of you think shes the bees knees dont make it so.

Read through this thread and youll see dozens of reasons why people dont like her - including three out of four of her kids - and that one fact speaks volumes.


----------



## banco (10 June 2012)

Her poetry is beyond parody:

Our Future

The globe is sadly groaning with debt, poverty and strife

And billions now are pleading to enjoy a better life

Their hope lies with resources buried deep within the earth

And the enterprise and capital which give each project worth

Is our future threatened with massive debts run up by political hacks

Who dig themselves out by unleashing rampant tax

The end result is sending Australian investment, growth and jobs offshore

This type of direction is harmful to our core

Some envious unthinking people have been conned

To think prosperity is created by waving a magic wand

Through such unfortunate ignorance, too much abuse is hurled

Against miners, workers and related industries who strive to build the world

Develop North Australia, embrace multiculturalism and welcome short term foreign workers to our shores

To benefit from the export of our minerals and ores

The world's poor need our resources: do not leave them to their fate

Our nation needs special economic zones and wiser government, before it is too late


----------



## noco (10 June 2012)

Thank you Joe for removing some of those disgusting posts on this thread.


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

Yes some of the personal abuse from the right wingers was unbearable.


----------



## banco (10 June 2012)

Our Gina is certainly a great example of someone born on third base who thinks she hit a home run.


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

banco said:


> Her poetry is beyond parody:
> 
> Our Future
> 
> ...




All these things will line my pockets as I feel thats my fate ( thats the missing line ?)


----------



## MrBurns (10 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> They have heaps of reasons to dislike - just because a few of you think shes the bees knees dont make it so.
> 
> Read through this thread and youll see dozens of reasons why people dont like her - including three out of four of her kids - and that one fact speaks volumes.




Rubbish, her kids don't like her ? how many others would fit into that category ? How do you know her kids don't like her.....really. 
No you don't it's just what you read in the paper.
She's a private individual don't go stirring up fallacies about people not liking her..........I'll let you in on a secret, most people wouldn't even know who she is.


----------



## numbercruncher (10 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Rubbish, her kids don't like her ? how many others would fit into that category ? How do you know her kids don't like her.....really.
> No you don't it's just what you read in the paper.
> She's a private individual don't go stirring up fallacies about people not liking her..........I'll let you in on a secret, most people wouldn't even know who she is.





So youd have some linkable evidence that her  3 older kids like her contrary to what the media reports ? Some of the media that she incidentially has a large shareholding in ...

So no fallacies ive linked plenty of articles about the feuding you calling them fallacies dont make it so ...


----------



## sptrawler (10 June 2012)

Hey numbercruncher were you a rigger, which would explain a lot of your posts?


----------



## johenmo (11 June 2012)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I'm an engineer, far more logical than most others here.




Q: How do you identify an extroverted engineer?
A: They look at other people's shoes when they talk to them...

SCM - I don't know you so this may not apply!  I report into an engineering dept.


----------



## Macquack (11 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> *"Australians to get first pick of mining jobs"*
> Now all the whiners can go for it, with any luck you can be in the pits by the end of the week.
> 
> I can see them now whistling, tapping their feet and edging toward the door........to hide




Burns would be happy with the following head
line "*Foreigners to get first pick of mining jobs*"



banco said:


> Her poetry is beyond parody:
> 
> *Our nation needs special economic zones* and wiser government, before it is too late




Reinhart needs to understand that she is either part of Australia or she can go start her own sovereign nation.

Burns and Co. are on the invitation list.

I won't be going, I reckon it with be the pits.


----------



## MrBurns (11 June 2012)

Macquack said:


> Burns would be happy with the following head
> line "*Foreigners to get first pick of mining jobs*"




You seem to be consistent in as much as you always miss the point - I was pointing out that foreigners will not get precedence but even though Aussies are first in line I don't think enough of them will bother applying, as they would rather whinge than work, otherwise foreign workers would not be required would they Macquack.

I didnt miss the post you made then deleted either, all I can say is "same to you".


----------



## DB008 (11 June 2012)

Good on Gina.

Turned a ~$70 million dollar inheritence in a few billion (with the help of a Rio Tino JV - Hope Downs)

What she does in her private life, is well, her private life. 

I think that people are just jealous. Simple as that.


----------



## Macquack (11 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> even though Aussies are first in line I don't think enough of them will bother applying, as they would rather whinge than work.



Are you an Australian? If you are, you have a very poor attitude towards your fellow Australians.






MrBurns said:


> otherwise foreign workers would not be required




Are they really required, that is the core issue. I maintain there is never a shortage  of anything, only a shortage at a particular price.

Burns, do you understand the concept of "the thin edge of the wedge"?


----------



## MrBurns (11 June 2012)

DB008 said:


> Good on Gina.
> 
> Turned a ~$70 million dollar inheritence in a few billion (with the help of a Rio Tino JV - Hope Downs)
> 
> ...




+1



Macquack said:


> Are you an Australian? If you are, you have a very poor attitude towards your fellow Australians.
> Burns, do you understand the concept of "the thin edge of the wedge"?




I am and I know all about the bludge mentallity encouraged by handouts without proper supervision, thin edge of the wedge ? don't panic Macquack the world wont change because a few foreigners are allowed in the do some work, you should apply yourself.


----------



## DB008 (11 June 2012)

Macquack said:


> Are they really required, that is the core issue. I maintain there is never a shortage  of anything, only a shortage at a particular price.




LOL. Would you take a wage cut then?

Are they really required? When you have billions on the line and contracts in place to supply a product with massive financial penalties if you don't deliver on-time, then YES, you would want to build the mine as fast as possible. 

Should a tradie doing FIFO work be on ~$165k++ a year??? While a metro tradie be on ~$70k?

1) There is a massive shortage of skilled workers. Demand and supply. Rio/BHP/FMG and other mining companies just keep upping the wages to attract workers. Meanwhile, workers in the Eastern States are clutching at straws for work. We've all seen companies closing down/retrenching workers left-right-and-centre. What's that saying??? "You can lead a horse to water...."

2) Some people don't actually want to do FIFO work. I've been to a few sites in WA and literally seen people hop off the plane in the Pilbara and say, 'F**k this, put me back on the next flight' - And that is no BS.

3) Doing FIFO work can put pressure on families. At a guess, when l did FIFO, 'more than national average' of relationships broke up/did not work out in the long term.


----------



## Miss Hale (11 June 2012)

hja said:


> As for making fun of personal appearance, like John Howard's supposed short height or Bob Hawke's eyebrows, has always been a part and parcel of public life, not that it's right... though it is becoming less PC.




That's true, cartoonists would be out of a job if they couldn't make fun of people's physical appearance.  However, no one is going to take you seriously (by 'you' I don't mean you personally but 'you' in general) if you simply resort to making comments about people's appearances to back up your argument and that applies to other politicians, commentators, posters on forums etc. Shows like Q&A are not are comedy shows and are not an appropriate place to make a gratuitous joke about someone's appearance ( I was also disappointed with Germaine Greer's comments about Julia Gillard).



numbercruncher said:


> Seriously you guys are the ones harping on about the feedback posted on the ABC article - wasnt us that bought up the fat and ugly comment was linked from ABC Q&A. The public broadly dont like her and its obviously mostly of her own doing.




It was you that brought it up!  I refer to your opening post.  If you want a serious discussion about Gina Rhinehart why start it with a quote (bolded by you) that mentions her being fat and ugly?


----------



## Glen48 (11 June 2012)

DB: 1_) There is a massive shortage of skilled workers. Demand and supply. Rio/BHP/FMG and other mining companies just keep upping the wages to attract workers

_The only jobs going are for Mystery shoppers or Uni Grads such as geologists etc.

IF BHP and others shares prices is declining there has to be a declining market therefore no expansion.


----------



## Calliope (11 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> That's true, cartoonists would be out of a job if they couldn't make fun of people's physical appearance.  However, no one is going to take you seriously (by 'you' I don't mean you personally but 'you' in general) if you simply resort to making comments about people's appearances to back up your argument and that applies to other politicians, commentators, posters on forums etc. Shows like Q&A are not are comedy shows and are not an appropriate place to make a gratuitous joke about someone's appearance ( I was also disappointed with Germaine Greer's comments about Julia Gillard).
> 
> It was you that brought it up!  I refer to your opening post.  If you want a serious discussion about Gina Rhinehart why start it with a quote (bolded by you) that mentions her being fat and ugly?




It is an invective very popular with the left on this forum, Miss Hale. They find it easier to ridicule someone's appearance, weight, character (and in one infamous case, even personal hygiene), when the are devoid of rational argument.


----------



## Macquack (11 June 2012)

DB008 said:


> LOL. *Would you take a wage cut then*?
> 
> Are they really required? When you have billions on the line and contracts in place to supply a product with massive financial penalties if you don't deliver on-time, then YES, you would want to build the mine as fast as possible.
> 
> ...




Mate, I agree with what you are saying, I am a Sydney metro building contractor, but what does "*Would you take a wage cut then?*" mean?


----------



## JTLP (11 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> That really doesnt fit in a thread that is partially discussing Gina giving away thousands of our job just because she has a permit to mine our minerals.
> 
> This same person supports some dodgy northern economic exclusion zone that will shaft Australia even more.




NC - It does fit in the thread.

I don't see why people expect handouts/priorities etc in this day and age. We should all be working to make Australia great (after all - nobody here is 'Australian' per se - unless you're Indigenous). If this means flying in workers to ensure projects can get up and we can continue to prosper - then let it occur. I'd rather fly in people who want the jobs then having the project be delayed for months on end because we are struggling to fill them. The government knows this as well - that's why they give the EMA the big tick!


----------



## numbercruncher (11 June 2012)

If Forrest can do it , why cant Rinehart ? = greed - Rinehart is finding out those jobs are for Australians first not to line her pockets more.

JTLP - so your not patriotic thats fine - Im on Forrests side and it seems so is Abott.




> BILLIONAIRE mining magnate Andrew Forrest has celebrated his Australian Employment Covenant (AEC) finding 10,000 jobs for Aboriginal people by taking a swipe at the federal government's record on indigenous employment.
> New figures from employers who signed with the AEC founded by Mr Forrest show that 10,501 indigenous Australians were now off welfare and working, the AEC said in a statement.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/wor...bs/story-e6frfm9r-1226342331025#ixzz1xTo5622W





Yet so many of you support leaving people on the dole so Billionaires can get richer - blows me away.




> Libs vow to back Twiggy on 'real' *jobs*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/libs-vow-to-back-twiggy-on-real-jobs/story-fn59noo3-1226358203242

No doubt a few here will swap teams play polictics and call a moral liberal victory on promoting Australian jobs ?


----------



## sptrawler (11 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> DB: 1_) There is a massive shortage of skilled workers. Demand and supply. Rio/BHP/FMG and other mining companies just keep upping the wages to attract workers
> 
> _The only jobs going are for Mystery shoppers or Uni Grads such as geologists etc.
> 
> IF BHP and others shares prices is declining there has to be a declining market therefore no expansion.




Good post Glen.

Keeps everyone thinking there are jobs, they only have to apply and if they don't get one, they are idiots.LOL


----------



## numbercruncher (11 June 2012)

Plenty more evidence of this rort surfacing - dont really have to look far.



> THE plan to import 1700 semi-skilled workers to help build Gina Rinehart's Roy Hill Mine has exposed discontent among many in the community who feel the mining boom is someone else's boom, not theirs.
> 
> If we are to spread the benefits of the boom, workers willing and able to accept jobs in the mining industry must be assured a fair go.
> 
> ...




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/good-jobs-for-aussies-is-not-a-miner-matter/story-e6frezz0-1226370306942


----------



## sptrawler (11 June 2012)

Jeez, if you look back at least a year ago, we posted that Warrick Mckibbin was saying this was an issue.
Just love how the public reaction is like time lapse photography.


----------



## Calliope (12 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Plenty more evidence of this rort surfacing - dont really have to look far.
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/good-jobs-for-aussies-is-not-a-miner-matter/story-e6frezz0-1226370306942




Evidence surfacing? . The article was written by the extremely left biased ALP Senator Doug Cameron a fortnight ago.


----------



## numbercruncher (12 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> Evidence surfacing? . The article was written by the extremely left biased ALP Senator Doug Cameron a fortnight ago.




Next youll be accusing Abbott of also being "extremely left" for supporting that great Aussie legend Forrest in his quest for Aussie jobs.

A few of you should perhaps seek unification with China or something as your hell bent on being Un-Australian, maybe hook up with your Heroine Gina to seek succession from Australia and form your utopia Northern Economic Exclusion zone.


----------



## sails (12 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Next youll be accusing Abbott of also being "extremely left" for supporting that great Aussie legend Forrest in his quest for Aussie jobs.
> 
> A few of you should perhaps seek unification with China or something as your hell bent on being Un-Australian, maybe hook up with your Heroine Gina to seek succession from Australia and form your utopia Northern Economic Exclusion zone.




Un-australian...

You have a twisted idea of what is Australian, NC.  The majority of Australians do not want this government.  Anyone supporting the ideals of this government would be more Un-Australian than anything I have seen in my lifetime - and I was born and bred in this country.

I get the feeling you are  trying to make it look like you represent the majority of Aussie voters (which you do NOT) and deliberately flame those of that real majority who do not support your mnority views.

Calling us "hell bent on being Un-Australian" is downright disgusting.  Stick to the subject and stop hurling insults at other people just because you don't agree with them.


----------



## numbercruncher (12 June 2012)

The issue being discussed was giving away Australain jobs when Australians are available to do them and handful of you keep labelling this as left wing lunacy - what a joke. I do represent the majority of Australians on this issue despite what the Rinehart fan club like to promote.

As I just linked Liberals are now supporting Forrest in his quest for Aussie jobs yet some of you seem to this Liberal support the 457 replacement of Aussie jobs.

So you think im disguisting for supporting Australian jobs I inturn think your disguisting for not - all good bring the debate instead of the emotional sooky sideshows.

You chose to use capital letters that my view is minority - prove it , otherwise your words are as shallow as they are meaningless.

This thread is full of links to public opinion , policy and proof of lack of effort from team Rinehart to recruit Australians.


----------



## numbercruncher (12 June 2012)

sails said:


> Un-australian...
> 
> You have a twisted idea of what is Australian, NC.  The majority of Australians do not want this government.  Anyone supporting the ideals of this government would be more Un-Australian than anything I have seen in my lifetime - and I was born and bred in this country.
> .




Another thing -

Wasnt even discussing "this" Government - they are the idiots that originally aloud team Rinehart so many 457s without adequately trying to locate locals.

My discussion here isnt either side of polictics as they both seem close enough to centre to be the same kind of idiots to me. Some made bigger screwups that others.

Anyway go start a generalist politics thread if you want to rant off topic.


----------



## Logique (12 June 2012)

Gina Rinehart is creating jobs for Australians - right now. She isn't waiting around to be wrapped in green tape, political correctness, Canberra talking shops, or union dogma. She's just getting on with it.

To all the Rinehart knockers, who's the hate media now. Who's being negative now.


----------



## numbercruncher (12 June 2012)

Despite what the minoroty think this is being cracked down on.



> MINING companies seeking foreign labour to plug skills gaps will be required to advertise jobs on a Federal Government website to give Australians first crack at new positions.
> 
> The Resources Sector Jobs Board went live yesterday.






> "Those concerns arose from a lack of assurances that any process was in place to assess the resources sector's skilled and semi-skilled labour requirements," he said.
> 
> "At the time of the announcement, there had been *no independent evidence* to back up claims by mining magnates like Gina Rinehart that there aren't enough Australian workers to meet the needs of future resources projects."
> 
> The Resources Sector Jobs Board can be found at jobsearch.gov.au/resourcesectorjobs




Funny enough there is only 100 odd jobs available when I looked today - but its a step in the right direction.


----------



## Calliope (12 June 2012)

Logique said:


> Gina Rinehart is creating jobs for Australians - right now. She isn't waiting around to be wrapped in green tape, political correctness, Canberra talking shops, or union dogma. She's just getting on with it.
> 
> To all the Rinehart knockers, who's the hate media now. Who's being negative now.




WA is looking down the barrel of being 76,000 workers short in the skills area by 2015. If Twiggy wants to train Indigenous Australians for skilled work in the mining industry then good for him. In the meantime the big projects, which will provide the jobs, can't get off the ground without the help of temporary imported skilled labour.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/business...nd-76000-workers/story-e6frg2r3-1226389902400


----------



## numbercruncher (12 June 2012)

Good to see some real effort going into recruiting for a change -



> Training and Workforce Development Minister Peter Collier, who will head the delegation, told The Sunday Times: "No stone will be left unturned. We will stand on street corners and beaches if we have to. "
> 
> He said mining magnate Andrew Forrest was among 25 key industry and business figures invited to join him as part of a "crack team" to sell WA in town halls, expos and training centres on the east coast.





But I didnt read anything about these projects being "unable to get off the ground without imported labour" - nope another fabrication. And still no evidence of team Rinehart making  a good effort to recruit locally - Guess if they wait long enough they may not have many to choose from ?

Twiggy is a legend though - True Blue Patriotic Aussie  - very ethical.


----------



## Calliope (12 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> But I didnt read anything about these projects being "unable to get off the ground without imported labour" - nope another fabrication.




Your reading is very selective.

Two weeks ago, the government announced Gina Rinehart was the first successful applicant for an EMA and would be allowed to import *1715 foreign workers to ensure* she has the 8000 workers *necessary* to build the $9.5 billion Roy Hill iron ore project in the Pilbara.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/mine...ur-campaign-20120607-1zz3d.html#ixzz1xY2C81DV


----------



## JTLP (12 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> JTLP - so your not patriotic thats fine - Im on Forrests side and it seems so is Abott.




I'm about as patriotic as you can get - please don't taint me with the same brush as your beloved government who seem hellbent on ruining this great land.



numbercruncher said:


> Despite what the minoroty think this is being cracked down on.
> Funny enough there is only 100 odd jobs available when I looked today - but its a step in the right direction.




Ra ra ra - government bandaids to try and get some votes. Awful idea.


----------



## Timmy (13 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I stand by my comments.
> 
> You can lead a Southerner to water, but you cannot make him or her drink.
> 
> ...






Any chance of some bigger generalisations before you head off for your six month stretch GG?


----------



## Glen48 (13 June 2012)

If companies lifted the self imposed age limit to say 60+ instead of40 - 45 a lot more workers would be available.


----------



## Glen48 (13 June 2012)

Bit like you can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think.


----------



## Glen48 (13 June 2012)

*Here is 1,800 soon looking for work:

Ford will shut down its Australian car-making operations for a week and consider possible job cuts as sales stall.*The company is facing a 24 per cent slump in year-on-year Falcon sales and a massive $290 million annual loss announced last month.Ford on Wednesday said it will now have to close the Broadmeadows and Geelong plants in Victoria for seven days in July, coming just three months after 1800 workers were stood down for three days when a key supplier went into administration.The car-maker has also not ruled out future job cuts while adjusting to current market conditions, said company spokeswoman Sinead Phipps."We remain committed to our strategy of matching production to market demand," she said."We have also confirmed that we are looking at a number of alternatives to allow us to manage our production schedule through the rest of this year, including additional down days or the possibility of a down balance (to produce less vehicles per day)."Management has been meeting with union leaders as workplace negotiations continue, though no decisions have been finalised.In one hopeful sign, Ford's sales of Focus, Ranger and Territory models jumped 70 per cent over last year's figures.But this change still failed to compensate for the decline in interest for its well-known fleet of large-model cars.Earlier this year, Ford received more than $100 million from the federal and Victorian governments to ensure the company keeps its Melbourne operations going until at least 2016.Ford cut 240 jobs at its Australian operations last year.Union representatives and the Victorian government were unavailable for immediate comment.​


----------



## johenmo (13 June 2012)

So who's the


----------



## IFocus (13 June 2012)

Jobs required in WA are largely skilled so we need training particularly our youth yet in the southern suburbs youth unemployment is quite high, apprentice numbers are actually falling under the WA state conservative government how can that be so in a boom state. 


We have the people but we lack the political will at state level.

In such an environment Gina calls the shots and buys her influence either directly through party donations (Bishop has a job for life) or through the media its a win win.


----------



## numbercruncher (18 June 2012)

I see your mate is getting closer to influencing the impressionable masses thoughts via media control ..... I would suspect a move into politics not too far off ??




> MINING magnate Gina Rinehart is believed to have asked for three board seats at Fairfax Media and the unfettered right to hire and fire editors.
> 
> Fairfax, however, is yet to make*a formal offer of seats to Mrs Rinehart, although that*is expected to be made in the next 24 hours and to be for for two seats.
> 
> ...


----------



## IFocus (18 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> I see your mate is getting closer to influencing the impressionable masses thoughts via media control ..... I would suspect a move into politics not too far off ??





Gina will fulfill Lang's dream of running the editorial of a national news organization then watch PM Abbott snap to attention when Gina wants action to further her ambitions.


----------



## Calliope (18 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Gina will fulfill Lang's dream of running the editorial of a national news organization then watch PM Abbott snap to attention when Gina wants action to further her ambitions.




That's good news. With gina as his mentor he can't lose.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Gina will fulfill Lang's dream of running the editorial of a national news organization then watch PM Abbott snap to attention when Gina wants action to further her ambitions.




The next ambition will be to effectively shut down the ABC by reducing funding like Murdoch agreed with the English PM to do to the BBC. (Luckily it didn't happen) ABC24 can shut down and we can all watch sky channel.
That way everyone can sing from the same song sheet.

Gina has long requested a special economic zone where she gets lower taxes, less restrictions on harming the wildlife and the ability to bring in hoards of people temporarily, rather like how they brought in people for sugar cane cutting early last century. It will be very interesting to see what she gets after next election.

My worry is that we seem to have lost as a people the desire to do what's right for Australia as a whole. Itseems everyone, whether they be unions, oliarchs or big companies looking to get what we want even if it is against the interests of the country.


----------



## sptrawler (19 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> *Here is 1,800 soon looking for work:
> *​



*

Then you have a couple of thousand from the collapse of Hastie Group, another 250 from the Perth based solar hot water manufacturer that's closing. Then of course you have the solar panel manufacturer that is shutting after 25years, not forgeting all the One Steel and Bluescope workers being laid of due to furnace closures. The retail crisis and building industry slowdown  labor is working on it.

What skills shortage? lets see next year if we can allieviate it further.*​


----------



## Calliope (19 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> The next ambition will be to effectively shut down the ABC by reducing funding like Murdoch agreed with the English PM to do to the BBC. (Luckily it didn't happen) ABC24 can shut down and we can all watch sky channel.
> That way everyone can sing from the same song sheet..




Don't worry Knobby. You can always subscribe to The  CPA Guardian (The Australian Workers' Weekly) for an update on idealogy.


----------



## Julia (19 June 2012)

So Gina Rinehart has nothing useful to contribute to Fairfax, despite it being on its knees as an organisation.

Her proven business skills count for nothing, apparently, because she doesn't have specific past experience in digital media.

I'd suggest she's pretty capable of learning very quickly what she doesn't know.

At least she has demonstrated that she can make money.

What makes me laugh is that if she were of a Left political bias, her experience would be hailed by Fairfax and the media in general as invaluable, and she'd be offered all the seats she could desire on the Board.

And Stephen Conroy's remarks:   how transparently pathetic.


----------



## Calliope (19 June 2012)

Democracy in danger.

*Swan warns Rinehart media ploy bad for democracy*

Ms Rinehart is understood to have demanded three seats on the Fairfax board. 




> Treasurer Wayne Swan has warned that Gina Rinehart's push for unfettered control over Fairfax Media is *a threat to Australian democracy.*
> 
> The Deputy Prime Minister told reporters in Canberra today that the mining magnate's resistance to the media company's charter of editorial independence was deeply concerning.
> 
> ...




And the Greens want to apply their own brand of *democracy* to muzzle Rinehart;



> Greens communications spokesman Scott Ludlam said there was now an urgent case for legislation that would bind media company directors and board members to stay out of editorial decisions.
> "I think there is a real urgency with this and yesterday's announcement really sharpens the urgency of bringing such an instrument foreward




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...r-democracy-20120619-20l5l.html#ixzz1yDG8wu5C


----------



## sptrawler (19 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> Democracy in danger.




Good old Wayne saying Australian democracy is in danger. 
IMO since this government came in, it is in tatters. 
Any semblence of democratic decision making, or acting on behalf of the majority is the last thing these lot have undertaken.
Having a selfish pursuit of ones own interest isn't isolted to Gina, maybe Wayne could look in the mirror.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 June 2012)

Julia said:


> What makes me laugh is that if she were of a Left political bias, her experience would be hailed by Fairfax and the media in general as invaluable, and she'd be offered all the seats she could desire on the Board.
> 
> .




No she wouldn't.

Editorial policy should be independant. I don't want any owner telling us what we should think. 
.......especially if she is going to use her power to advance her interests.


----------



## numbercruncher (19 June 2012)

Thankfully we live in the Internet age, those with half a brain or more can choose to ignore Fairfax media once it becomes the propaganda machine.

Unfortunately that still leaves millions who will believe whatever is force fed to them .....




> Treasurer Wayne Swan says Gina Rinehart is the only media owner to blatantly declare an intention to ignore editorial independence
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...il-rinehart-20120619-20l5l.html#ixzz1yDmKVjv5


----------



## MrBurns (19 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> Democracy in danger.
> 
> *Swan warns Rinehart media ploy bad for democracy*
> 
> ...




Yes everyone with money is a threat to democracy, Rinehart, Palmer, it's a conspiracy, what a bloody joke and national embarrassment that man is.:bad:


----------



## BradK (19 June 2012)

Julia said:


> What makes me laugh is that if she were of a Left political bias, her experience would be hailed by Fairfax and the media in general as invaluable, and she'd be offered all the seats she could desire on the Board.




I rarely disagree with you, Julia - but I think you are off the mark on this one. 

Has there been a case that you can highlight of something similar happening before from the left? 

Cheers
Brad


----------



## sails (19 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Thankfully we live in the Internet age, those with half a brain or more can choose to ignore Fairfax media once it becomes the propaganda machine.
> 
> Unfortunately that still leaves millions who will believe whatever is force fed to them .....





lol - lefties have had ABC and Fairfax and yet lefties are a small minority these days despite the unbalanced media in favour of the left.

So what if Fairfax become more balanced?  That would likely put more pressure on Murdoch - I would have thought lefties would be happy about that?


----------



## Miss Hale (19 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> Democracy in danger.
> 
> *Swan warns Rinehart media ploy bad for democracy*
> 
> ...




For crying out loud Fairfax is a _private _company they make their own rules.  If they want to have a rule about board members not having editorial influence fair enough but it's not something the government should have anything to do with. Just another example of how out of touch people like Swan and the Greens are.

Fairfax should be grateful anyone is interested in buying their shares. The only reason the current board doesn't have editorial influence is because they paper is doing want the current board wants editorially (even though it's to their detriment).  It's not strictly true that they have no influnece though. Wouldn't the board appoint the Editor in Chief?  They would have had editorial input then.


----------



## Miss Hale (19 June 2012)

I actually think The Age and SMH are doomed anyway.  Maybe with Rinehart they might have half a chance but I'm still not sure they have not sunk so low that they can't be revived.  The fact that they are not going to tabloid format until March is ridiculous.  If they think that's a good idea to boost sales do it now! Why wait until March?  - the papers may not exist by then if they continue on their current trajectory.  Sound like the current board has no idea.


----------



## Miss Hale (19 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> No she wouldn't.
> 
> Editorial policy should be independant. I don't want any owner telling us what we should think.
> .......especially if she is going to use her power to advance her interests.




But it's not really independent is it? The current editorial slant is left so we can assume that because the board do not interfere that they agree with that.  Julia's point is valid IMO, if Rinehart was left leaning she would be welcomed on the board with open arms because she would make no waves.


----------



## Julia (19 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> Democracy in danger.
> 
> *Swan warns Rinehart media ploy bad for democracy*
> 
> ...



Conroy has ruled out legislating for so called editorial independence.



BradK said:


> I rarely disagree with you, Julia - but I think you are off the mark on this one.
> 
> Has there been a case that you can highlight of something similar happening before from the left?
> 
> ...



Happy for you to disagree, Brad.  At least you do so in a civil fashion.
How about the ABC to answer your question.   It has a clear Left leaning, especially Radio National.
And it's a taxpayer funded entity so surely should be entirely without bias.

Fairfax is a private company.  As Miss Hale points out, we can assume the current board agrees with its present Left bias because if they didn't, they could quickly fire the Editor and related staff.

The taxpayers funding the ABC appear to have no such option.


----------



## Glen48 (19 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> Ms Rinehart is understood to have demanded three seats on the Fairfax board.



Talk about over weight now!!!


----------



## Julia (19 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> No she wouldn't.



(This above was in response to my suggesting if she were politically Left leaning she would be offered whatever she wanted at Fairfax).
So could you explain why you disagree, Knobby?   Fairfax is very clearly Left in political bias.  Why would they not welcome someone who would endorse that?


----------



## banco (19 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> But it's not really independent is it? The current editorial slant is left so we can assume that because the board do not interfere that they agree with that.  Julia's point is valid IMO, if Rinehart was left leaning she would be welcomed on the board with open arms because she would make no waves.




How is the editorial policy not "really independent" because they lean to the left?


----------



## Miss Hale (19 June 2012)

banco said:


> How is the editorial policy not "really independent" because they lean to the left?




If a paper was fairly evenly balanced with it's presentation of issues then you could say it is independent, but when it's obviously leans on way or another then it can't really be called independent. The Age has a left bias so the editorial policy can't be called independent.


----------



## sails (19 June 2012)

banco said:


> How is the editorial policy not "really independent" because they lean to the left?





So, if "independent" is neither left nor right, then where's the problem if Gina wants to see Fairfax become profitable?


----------



## Knobby22 (19 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> But it's not really independent is it? The current editorial slant is left so we can assume that because the board do not interfere that they agree with that.  Julia's point is valid IMO, if Rinehart was left leaning she would be welcomed on the board with open arms because she would make no waves.




I get to read all the regular writers and they are mostly deep thinking. From Costello and Vanstone(She's very good) to a wide disporia of others. That's what papers should strive to be!
Those from the northern states don't get the chance to compare. I don't like it when an agenda is run and I am fed propaganda disquised as news.


----------



## sptrawler (19 June 2012)

So how is it worse to have a newspaper taking the government to task, than have a government that enacts policy that the electors haven't voted on? Am I missing something, or is an action causing a counter reaction.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> So how is it worse to have a newspaper taking the government to task, than have a government that enacts policy that the electors haven't voted on? Am I missing something, or is an action causing a counter reaction.




When nearly every member of a newspaper is told to attack one party its not a good look.

Murdoch bragged about how he got Tony Blair in, do you think that was fair?


----------



## Miss Hale (19 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I get to read all the regular writers and they are mostly deep thinking. From Costello and Vanstone(She's very good) to a wide disporia of others. That's what papers should strive to be!
> Those from the northern states don't get the chance to compare. I don't like it when an agenda is run and I am fed propaganda disquised as news.




OK, well I disagree. I think - on balance - The Age is left leaning and I am not alone in that opinion.  Do you read the Herald Sun?  Do you think that paper has any political bias?  What do you think of The Australian?


----------



## Knobby22 (19 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> OK, well I disagree. I think - on balance - The Age is left leaning and I am not alone in that opinion.  Do you read the Herald Sun?  Do you think that paper has any political bias?  What about the The Australian?




Yes I read the Herald Sun. It has one resident lefty who is a mindless fool (that women who was on TV) and I don't mind Terry Macrann but its pretty empty of opinion content but is not afraid to lie in the headline and correct it about six paragraphs down. Its not as overt as the Australian but keeps pushing the aims of Newscorp but at least those aims are often nebulous and international. With Gina we know what she wants precisely and she is not afraid to twist the arm of the next government to get it.!!


----------



## sptrawler (19 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> When nearly every member of a newspaper is told to attack one party its not a good look.
> 
> Murdoch bragged about how he got Tony Blair in, do you think that was fair?




Well Knobby if labor had gone to the public with the mining tax and the carbon tax as their platform and the public voted them in.
Then they would have the mandate of the people and there is nothing anybody can say about it.
The unfortunate thing is this government has enacted far reaching and in a lot of ways oppressive taxes, with no mandate. 
The result is a massive backlash, which in effect, is what is meant to happen in a free and open society.
The problem now is the government is trying to get the electorate to accept it was done in their best interest, however the electorate isn't wearing it.
Labor pineapple 101


----------



## Miss Hale (19 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Yes I read the Herald Sun. It has opne resident lefty who is a mindless fool (that women who was on TV) and I don't mind Terry Macrann but its pretty empty of opinion content but is not afraid to lie in the headline and correct it about six paragraphs down. Its not as overt as the Australian but keeps pushing the aims of Newscorp.




I think the resident lefty you refer to would be Jill Singer. I'm not a fan of hers either.



> The problem is that it doesn't try to be fair.




I would say the same about The Age.  

Thanks for giving your opinion Knobby  (absolutely no sarcasm intended)


----------



## Calliope (19 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I get to read all the regular writers and they are mostly deep thinking. From Costello and Vanstone(She's very good) to a wide disporia of others..




What the hell is a disporia? Are they the loony lefties?


----------



## Julia (19 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> What the hell is a disporia? Are they the loony lefties?



I assumed Knobby meant 'diaspora', though I'm not sure how that really fits either.


----------



## sptrawler (19 June 2012)

Oh come on, give the guy a break, he comes from middle earth. Only joking, no offence intended.


----------



## banco (19 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> If a paper was fairly evenly balanced with it's presentation of issues then you could say it is independent, but when it's obviously leans on way or another then it can't really be called independent. The Age has a left bias so the editorial policy can't be called independent.




You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## Miss Hale (19 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Oh come on, give the guy a break, he comes from middle earth.




Aha, now I know why he reads so many newspapers, because he has second breakfast


----------



## Miss Hale (19 June 2012)

banco said:


> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.




Do you mean 'independent'.  Tell me what you think it means?


----------



## banco (19 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Do you mean 'independent'.  Tell me what you think it means?




In the context of the media "not subject to external influence".


----------



## Miss Hale (19 June 2012)

banco said:


> In the context of the media "not subject to external influence".




Well I would argue that the they are always subject to the influence of the board to some extent even if it's just via the senior appointments so they can't really claim they are 'not subject to external influence' .  For example, what would the current board do if all of a sudden their editor in chief changed the whole tone of the paper and was supportive of the mining industry, anti the Gillard government and started publishing articles about Tony Abbott being the best thing since sliced bread.  Would the current board just stand buy and watch this happen I wonder?  Alternatively, if the editorial policy of the paper is resulting in circulation falling, should not the board have some influence over this in order to maximise shareholder returns?


----------



## IFocus (20 June 2012)

Gina makes money through her royalties and the coming mining operations not news papers.

Gina is not interested in making money in news papers fact is no one is making much in news any more.

Gina is interested in investing $50 mil for billions in return i.e. punching governments around for greater advantage in her mining operations thats where she makes money rememeber.

Just like Lang tried with Charlie Court......difference is Charlie was a real Liberal and told him to Fu(k off.

So end game is she buys the best Coalition money can afford, owns a TV station and News operation and runs her agenda and you lot say good on her.

This is not left / right argument its actually a national interest argument..........remember Charlie Court WA state premier was an absolute die in the wool hard nose Liberal and he had common sense to see Langs agenda for what it was.


----------



## sails (20 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> ...With Gina we know what she wants precisely and she is not afraid to twist the arm of the next government to get it.!!





You do???  How can you possibly know what Gina wants?

You and Swan and a few other lefties only THINK they know what Gina wants.  Nothing but assumptions...


----------



## sails (20 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Gina makes money through her royalties and the coming mining operations not news papers.
> 
> Gina is not interested in making money in news papers fact is no one is making much in news any more.
> 
> ...





Without Gina, Fairfax is likely doomed.  With Gina there is a chance of some jobs being saved and a more rounded paper that will appeal to a wider audience.  Nothing wrong with that.

If it's a national interest issue, then why hasn't the strong left bias of Fairfax been raised as an issue before?


----------



## Knobby22 (20 June 2012)

If she uses her business acumen to improve the company then I am for it.
I am also for her having some influence on the direction of the paper, it is her right as owner.

However, I believe she is buying Fairfax to gain political influence to get what she wants, and she has clearly stated what she wants- a special economic zone for mining with lower taxes and regulations such as wildlife preservation rules removed. 

She is free to argue her case as part of the democratic process but I don't know why you guys can't see that its not good for someone to own a major media company when there real money is tied up with something else annd they want to influence the populace and government to push that business.

If she gets the right to have an special economic zone, the money she spent owning Fairfax will be payed back many times over. 

I do think though that Tony Abbott will call her bluff and will not be unduly influenced however. 
...and Sails I think you should read the paper before making blanket statements.


----------



## Calliope (20 June 2012)

It seems to me that what the fuss is all about is that Rinehart will be able to somehow reduce the left wing bias of the Fairfax editors and journalists.

It is ironic that Stephen Conroy, Minister for Internet Censorship, and Rinehart hater, set up an  inquiry under Former Justice of the Federal Court, Ray Finkelstein, specifically to allow him to censor the content of News Ltd. papers.


----------



## drsmith (20 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I do think though that Tony Abbott will call her bluff and will not be unduly influenced however.



Malcolm Turnbull has chipped in.



> In that sense if Rinehart's objective is to exercise influence it may be at odds with the shareholders' interest in maximising the value of the company.
> 
> So it is not unreasonable for the board to say to her: if you want to exercise editorial control over the company, then make a takeover bid and after you have bought it, it is yours to manage or indeed mismanage to your heart's content.
> 
> Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If Rinehart took over Fairfax and ran her newspapers in a manner that engendered trust and confidence in readers and advertisers, ensuring that when she wanted to make a particular political point she did so in editorials or opinion pieces as opposed to slanted news coverage, she may be able to achieve political influence without diminishing the credibility, readership and value of the papers.




It would be interesting to know whether Tony Abbott rolled him out, or whether he rolled himself out.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/rinehart-the-saviour-20120619-20m0c.html


----------



## overhang (20 June 2012)

I've noticed many on here are critical towards the left bias in the Fairfax press.  I'd like to ask those who are critical if you recognize the right bias in The Australian and similar News Ltd press (who happen to control a 70% market share in Australia) and if so do you have a problem with this?

There is no doubt most people would prefer to read a paper that has a similar editorial bias to their own political leaning rather than challenge their own ideology by reading a paper with an opposing political stance.  But I find it frustrating when people of both political persuasion criticize the bias in either Fairfax or News Corp while completely discounting the bias that exists in the press that they read.

As and individual that attempts to remain unbiased it seems the only way to receive balanced news is to read the paper from both major companies.


----------



## Miss Hale (20 June 2012)

overhang said:


> I've noticed many on here are critical towards the left bias in the Fairfax press.  I'd like to ask those who are critical if you recognize the right bias in The Australian and similar News Ltd press (who happen to control a 70% market share in Australia) and if so do you have a problem with this?




Yes, I recognise bias in The Australian and other News Ltd press.  No I don't have a problem with this.  Nor do I have a problem with The Age or SMH being biased.  I have a problem when media outlets claim not to be biased when they are (like the ABC).  I'm quite happy for The Age to print left leaning opinions etc.  as long as there is no muzzling of anyone else (a) pointing this out, and (b) printing right leaning opinions (and that goes for the other way around too). Of course it would be nice to have a truly balanced media outlet but I don't think we have that at the moment, it's just the way it is.  As long as there are no barriers to diversified opinions being accessible somewhere (even though not in the one publication) I think that is fine.  With regards to the 70% share, is that not based on readership figures?  If more people choose to read News Ltd papers how is that News Ltd's fault?


----------



## Calliope (20 June 2012)

overhang said:


> I've noticed many on here are critical towards the left bias in the Fairfax press.  I'd like to ask those who are critical if you recognize the right bias in The Australian and similar News Ltd press (who happen to control a 70% market share in Australia) and if so do you have a problem with this?




Considering that News Ltd. has to try to counterbalance the left wing bias of FairfaX Press, the ABC, the Press Gallery *and* the Labor/Green illegitimate government I think it is performing an essentail service.


----------



## drsmith (20 June 2012)

Paul Kelly on the ABC,



> Finally, the Fairfax downsize means more opportunity and responsibility for the ABC as public broadcaster. Its boss, Mark Scott, believes the ABC has been stepping up to this mark. He's wrong, with the conspicuous exception of some lead programs such as Four Corners, 7.30 and Lateline.
> 
> Given the market vacuum opening, Australia can no longer afford a heavily taxpayer-funded ABC locked into a fashionable "writers festival" political culture that caters to a dedicated "true believer" minority. The ABC carries a special responsibility at this point in history.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ty-public-policy/story-e6frg74x-1226401607937


----------



## sails (20 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> ......and Sails I think you should read the paper before making blanket statements.




lol - I have read them - albeit mostly online for free!  However, I am choosy and if an article is pathetically biased to alp while only giving some of the facts while conveniently omitting other important facts, then I don't read far.  And that happens quite a bit, so I think I have checked out enough articles to understand their left bias.

And, there have been times that those papers have not made a squeak about new findings that are not complimentary to AGW.  Andrew Bolt has quite often commented in his blog about such silence when he reports what Fairfax have not.

No wonder lefties, who refuse to read Murdoch, don't have all the facts.


----------



## overhang (20 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> With regards to the 70% share, is that not based on readership figures?  If more people choose to read News Ltd papers how is that News Ltd's fault?



This was poorly conveyed by me, what I intended to imply was that clearly the left wing bias Fairfax papers are hardly manipulating the population.  I'll be interested to see the effect that altering the size from broadsheet to tabloid size will have on market share considering the second largest complaint I hear about the SMH & The Age is the inconvenience of reading a broadsheet paper. 



Calliope said:


> Considering that News Ltd. has to try to counterbalance the left wing bias of FairfaX Press, the ABC, the Press Gallery *and* the Labor/Green illegitimate government I think it is performing an essentail service.




It's interesting you take that perspective that News Ltd has to counter balance the left as if they're the ones giving balance and perspective when the bottom line is they counterbalance each other.  The media have the role of ensuring both government and the opposition are held accountable, its a pity you need to read two newspapers to have a balanced perspective.


----------



## Miss Hale (20 June 2012)

overhang said:


> This was poorly conveyed by me, what I intended to imply was that clearly the left wing bias Fairfax papers are hardly manipulating the population.




I agree, I don't think they are manipulating the population at all.  Nor do I think the News Ltd is either.  As it stands, you can read a variety of arguments and counter arguments on any issue. I _am _concerned about rules that some pollies want to bring in where they will have more control of what is printed in the media. We don't need that. It's interesting that if papers were really to 'write crap' as Gillard so eloquently put it, readers would vote with their feet, there has to be some veracity to what papers print or we simply wouldn't bother to read them as they would be seen as unreliable.  Unfortunately, the same market forces don't apply to our pollies when they 'talk crap'  (or at least there is a time lag as to when we can exercise our distrust of them).  IMO the media (except the ABC which is governemnt funded) is far more accountable already than the government. 




overhang said:


> I'll be interested to see the effect that altering the size from broadsheet to tabloid size will have on market share considering the second largest complaint I hear about the SMH & The Age is the inconvenience of reading a broadsheet paper.




Me too.  I am surprised at how many dedicated Fairfax readers seem very happy with this change (although I suspect my Age reading father will be rolling in his grave  ).  I think it may well improve market share.


----------



## sails (20 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> ...It's interesting that if papers were really to 'write crap' as Gillard so eloquently put it, readers would vote with their feet, there has to be some veracity to what papers print or we simply wouldn't bother to read them as they would be seen as unreliable....





Isn't this precisely what has happened to Fairfax?  They have lost the majority of readers in this country who have voted with their feet?


----------



## Miss Hale (20 June 2012)

sails said:


> Isn't this precisely what has happened to Fairfax?  They have lost the majority of readers in this country who have voted with their feet?




Well that is my opinion too but current Fairfax management thinks it has more to do with things such as the broadsheet format (which I think is a factor but not sure how much).


----------



## Julia (20 June 2012)

overhang said:


> I've noticed many on here are critical towards the left bias in the Fairfax press.  I'd like to ask those who are critical if you recognize the right bias in The Australian and similar News Ltd press (who happen to control a 70% market share in Australia) and if so do you have a problem with this?
> 
> There is no doubt most people would prefer to read a paper that has a similar editorial bias to their own political leaning rather than challenge their own ideology by reading a paper with an opposing political stance.  But I find it frustrating when people of both political persuasion criticize the bias in either Fairfax or News Corp while completely discounting the bias that exists in the press that they read.
> 
> As and individual that attempts to remain unbiased it seems the only way to receive balanced news is to read the paper from both major companies.



Good point to raise, overhang.  I'll readily admit to choosing to read The Australian at least partly because it largely reflects my own views at this stage.

   I have, however, voted Labor more often than I've voted Liberal so am a swinging voter.

Imo the present woeful government has turned many previously swinging voters into Labor detesters.

If I were to add up the hours spent reading The Australian versus hours spent listening to ABC Radio, the radio hours would hugely exceed the print time.  That represents a balance toward the Left if anything, given the strong bias of the public broadcaster.

Good for Paul Kelly.  Totally agree with his remarks.  To be fair to ABC TV, though, they have in recent times done some thoroughly good stuff on e.g. Captain Emad, the people smuggling "refugee".  No fear or favour in that report.

Agree with all Miss Hale has said.


----------



## banco (20 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Of course it would be nice to have a truly balanced media outlet but I don't think we have that at the moment, it's just the way it is.




The US newspapers probably put the most effort into being objective and balanced (yes, yes I know they don't entirely suceed) and it's arguably as much a weakness as a strength.  They often end up virtually reprinting press releases and dumbing everything down to he said/she said reporting lest they be seen as biased.


----------



## IFocus (20 June 2012)

drsmith said:


> Malcolm Turnbull has chipped in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I would say the Liberal party machine rolled him out well aware of future implications of a Coalition government. The Nats are firmly in bed with Gina she pretty well owns the lot of them including Barnaby.

Plus Malcolm is the only one with balls to take on Gina, there is really no one else in the Coalition parliamentary party that would risk it.


----------



## Calliope (20 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Plus Malcolm is the only one with balls to take on Gina, there is really no one else in the Coalition parliamentary party that would risk it.




I don't know about "balls."  Malcolm is what is known as a "soft-**** leftie."


----------



## noco (20 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> I would say the Liberal party machine rolled him out well aware of future implications of a Coalition government. The Nats are firmly in bed with Gina she pretty well owns the lot of them including Barnaby.
> 
> Plus Malcolm is the only one with balls to take on Gina, there is really no one else in the Coalition parliamentary party that would risk it.




Yeah, well we all know which party Turbull really belongs to and he certainly is not a team player in the Liberal Party that is for sure.


----------



## Glen48 (20 June 2012)

The old man Lang was throwing money at Joh to run for PM guess a bit has rubbed of on to the daughter and the money has gone to her head.


----------



## banco (20 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> The old man Lang was throwing money at Joh to run for PM guess a bit has rubbed of on to the daughter and the money has gone to her head.




Pity a man of such integrity never made it to the lodge.


----------



## Macquack (20 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Gina makes money through her royalties and the coming mining operations not news papers.
> 
> *Gina is not interested in making money in news papers *fact is no one is making much in news any more.
> 
> ...



Totally agree.



sails said:


> You do???  How can you possibly know what Gina wants?
> 
> You and Swan and a few other lefties only THINK they know what Gina wants.  Nothing but assumptions...




Wake up sails, what do YOU think Rinehart wants?


----------



## sails (20 June 2012)

Macquack said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Wake up sails, what do YOU think Rinehart wants?





It doesn't matter what we think.  YOU need to wake up and stop making ASSumptions about other people when it is no more than a tainted guess.

Just because you THINK you know what she wants doesn't make it so.

I would love to know how she thinks - she's got pretty good business nous.  Without Gina, Fairfax is doomed anyway - so they've got nothing to lose and plenty to gain.


----------



## MrBurns (20 June 2012)

sails said:


> It doesn't matter what we think.  YOU need to wake up and stop making ASSumptions about other people when it is no more than a tainted guess.
> 
> Just because you THINK you know what she wants doesn't make it so.
> 
> I would love to know how she thinks - she's got pretty good business nous.  Without Gina, Fairfax is doomed anyway - so they've got nothing to lose and plenty to gain.




I agree, it's no ones business except hers and the shareholders anyway, and as for that half wit Wayne Swan he should just pull his head in hes a total embarrasment.
Ãf Rinehart does something illegal different story.


----------



## Julia (20 June 2012)

banco said:


> The US newspapers probably put the most effort into being objective and balanced (yes, yes I know they don't entirely suceed) and it's arguably as much a weakness as a strength.  They often end up virtually reprinting press releases and dumbing everything down to he said/she said reporting lest they be seen as biased.




That's a great point.  We're all so busy criticising our media here.  Maybe instead we should be thankful we can access a news and opinion source that is prepared to take a stand for or against government and other societal mores, and further, that we live in a society where it's still possible.
At least for now.


----------



## Calliope (22 June 2012)

Our soft left liberal Malcolm Turnbull thinks Rinehart should sign the pledge to keep her nose out of Fairfax editorial affairs. He is away with the fairies. Graham Richardson is more on the ball.



> By the way, don't hold your breath waiting for Rinehart to sign the Fairfax charter. She is in this for power and she can only achieve any of that by making sure Fairfax speaks with her voice.
> 
> For the Labor Party it is a chilling thought, and it's not too warm for a few journalists I know, either.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...age-one-disaster/story-e6frgd0x-1226404790357


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 June 2012)

There is much sloppy journalism, the weeds of the seeds of Whitlam's era which need to be off the purse of a struggling company.

Editorial freedom has naught to do with it.

FXJ is a struggling company, poorly led, with employees who behave more like public servants than journalists.

Gina will sort them out.

gg


----------



## Julia (22 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> Our soft left liberal Malcolm Turnbull thinks Rinehart should sign the pledge to keep her nose out of Fairfax editorial affairs. He is away with the fairies. Graham Richardson is more on the ball.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...age-one-disaster/story-e6frgd0x-1226404790357



Calliope, that article is available only to subscribers.  Could you do a copy and paste of Graham Richardson's remarks?

The amusing irony in all this outrage about Ms Rinehart not committing to sign the charter of editorial independence is that none of the current board members have signed it either, including the self righteous Mr Corbett.


----------



## Calliope (22 June 2012)

Rinehart is Labor"s Page-One Disaster;

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&gs_....,cf.osb&fp=4e9e80732daa8d93&biw=1365&bih=646


----------



## Julia (22 June 2012)

Thanks, Calliope.

Richardson is Labor's answer to Malcolm Fraser's thorn in the side of the Liberal Party.


----------



## Logique (23 June 2012)

Richardson is on the money in that piece.


> The Australian 22 June 2012
> 
> Why didn't Fairfax invent Seek? Or why don't they own it? he says.
> ...target journalism -- a world where the writer presents himself or herself as the arbiter of what is acceptable.
> ..The punters worked out the SMH years ago and have been deserting it in droves. The inmates have been running the asylum for far too long and it shows.



Can't present more, since I had to type it out from my hard copy _The Australian _ 22 June 2012.


----------



## joea (23 June 2012)

I believe Gina will be working in conjunction with others to sort out a few truths in conjunction
 to the "dirt files" program that Labor was silly enough to endorse.
My suggestion to Gillard, don't go there!!!
Your back yard is full of "c**p".:

joea


----------



## DB008 (23 June 2012)

4 Corners, Gina Rinehart - The Power of One



> "Gina Rinehart - The Power of One", reported by Marian Wilkinson goes, to air Monday 25th June at 8.30pm on ABC1. It is replayed on Tuesday 26th June at 11.35pm. It can also be seen on ABC News24 on Saturday at 8.00pm, on ABC iview or at 4 Corners.




http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/06/20/3529598.htm


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2012)

This made me smile from Mike Carlton



> There was an encouraging note, though, in an email from a reader named Jim, who urged me not to worry about Rinehart assuming editorial control. "I understand she will treat you and David Marr just as if you were part of the family,'' he wrote.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ay-marriage-20120622-20tbf.html#ixzz1yZNCjDzw


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> This made me smile from Mike Carlton
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ay-marriage-20120622-20tbf.html#ixzz1yZNCjDzw





I think you don't like Gina, IFocus.

Why?

gg


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I think you don't like Gina, IFocus.
> 
> Why?
> 
> gg





I know a lot about the family and its history some things to admire and some that are very dark.

One point I will make is Gina's estrangement from her kids is very much about her character and not her fathers Lang. 

As for the like / dislike I would say her continued litigation against a large number of people starting years ago is some thing to dislike and fear. 

Mean while Alan Kohler states the obvious 



> It seems pretty clear these two things are not related: Rinehart has become Carelessly Rich and in a position to do something about the anti-mining flavour (as she sees it) of the Australian media






> Australia's strangest rich person is apparently oblivious to the challenges facing publishers and is interested only in moulding public opinion.






> Gina Rinehart has absolutely nothing to contribute to the transformation of the company into a profitable digital publisher and is not interested in it anyway




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-19/kohler-newspapers-should-be-quarantined-from-the-web/4079498


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 June 2012)

Thanks IFocus,

I don't know as much about her as you.

What I see so far with FXJ I like.

Thanks for the reply.

gg


----------



## Calliope (23 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> I know a lot about the family and its history some things to admire and some that are very dark.




I am sure that if you had something "very dark" on her you would spill it. Or are you just groping in the dark? Perhaps you could send it to Julia and Wayne for their dirt file.


----------



## joea (23 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> I know a lot about the family and its history some things to admire and some that are very dark.
> 
> Mean while Alan Kohler states the obvious




Was Kohler correct in saying she was carelessly rich.?

http://www.aim.com.au/DisplayStory.asp?ID=830

The above link explains a bit.
joea


----------



## numbercruncher (23 June 2012)

You would have to be a little naive to think that her interest in Fairfax is a financial investment , the money involved is pocket money to her there is clearly an agenda beyond reviving this company.


----------



## Calliope (23 June 2012)

joea said:


> Was Kohler correct in saying she was carelessly rich.?
> 
> http://www.aim.com.au/DisplayStory.asp?ID=830
> 
> ...




Kohler was careless with the truth.


----------



## numbercruncher (23 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> I am sure that if you had something "very dark" on her you would spill it. Or are you just groping in the dark? Perhaps you could send it to Julia and Wayne for their dirt file.




Do you have a romantic crush on Gina ? You seem to get up anyone who dares utter unkind words about her ?


----------



## Calliope (23 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Do you have a romantic crush on Gina ? You seem to get up anyone who dares utter unkind words about her ?




No NC. No more than you have a romantic crush on Christine Milne.  I do admire her though, for the same reason that you hate her. She is Australia's most successful woman. Your politics of envy and class hatred cannot cope with this.


----------



## joea (23 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> You would have to be a little naive to think that her interest in Fairfax is a financial investment , the money involved is pocket money to her there is clearly an agenda beyond reviving this company.




You would have to naive to think these miners are going to let Labor stick it up them.
I can ensure you  these miners have done more for Australia than Labor will ever do!!
Labor wants to control the media because of their dirty back yard.
I can also ensure you that Gina is not alone on this.
Technically Abbot cannot change the government.
Just maybe, big business can.
joea


----------



## numbercruncher (23 June 2012)

Haha I know true love when I see it boys , no need denying it - your mega fans and thats cool.

Its just like if Roger Waters started a mining company id buy shares Solely based on his awesomeness.

We just have different taste in people


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> I am sure that if you had something "very dark" on her you would spill it. Or are you just groping in the dark? Perhaps you could send it to Julia and Wayne for their dirt file.





Most of it is in the public domain if you look and Gina's life is pretty much in the new book coming out.


----------



## Calliope (23 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Haha I know true love when I see it boys , no need denying it - your mega fans and thats cool.
> 
> Its just like if Roger Waters started a mining company id buy shares Solely based on his awesomeness.
> 
> We just have different taste in people




Childish and pathetic.


----------



## Julia (23 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Its just like if Roger Waters started a mining company id buy shares Solely based on his awesomeness.
> 
> We just have different taste in people



Sorry to intrude on this erudite exchange but who is Roger Waters and what is his relevance to either Gina Rinehart or mining?


----------



## numbercruncher (24 June 2012)

You must of lived a artistically detached life if you dont know who Roger Waters is 

Relevance is by way of demonstrating bias and motive your honour 

Feel free to intrude anytime ....


----------



## johenmo (24 June 2012)

Julia said:


> ... but who is Roger Waters ....




Pink Floyd - a band (just in case you don't know about them)

I'd rather listen to Roger than Gina.


----------



## Julia (24 June 2012)

Artistic?  Pink Floyd?   If you say so.  Hardly my idea of artistic.
However, that aside, I'm no less confused about why such a person would have any qualifications to be on the Fairfax board.
Probably best not pursued.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 June 2012)

Rinehart treated us as inferiors, says son

 Lauren Quaintance 
Published: June 24, 2012 - 3:00AM   From the Sunday Age


GINA Rinehart's estranged son, John Hancock, has told the author of a new book that his mother favoured the two daughters of her second husband because they were seen as genetically superior.

In a rare insight into the complex family dynamics of the world's richest woman, Mr Hancock, Rinehart's son to Englishman Greg Milton, told Fairfax journalist and author Adele Ferguson that his younger sisters, Hope and Ginia, from Rinehart's second marriage were ''put on top from the moment they were born''.

''Again and again it was drilled into them that they were superior, almost as if we [John and his sister Bianca] were adopted children whose future was to work in the grease traps,'' he says.

Ginia, 25, has sided with her mother in a dispute over control of the family's multibillion-dollar trust and is now regarded as her successor.

Mr Hancock's father, who the mining heiress married when she was 19 and who later became a taxi driver, would be all but airbrushed from the family narrative. On the other hand, Ms Rinehart described her much older second husband, Harvard-educated tax lawyer Frank Rinehart, as the ''finest person I've ever known''.

But, as reported in The Age yesterday, the book reveals that Frank Rinehart was convicted of tax fraud and had many secrets in his past. Mr Hancock describes his stepfather as a ''hard man'' and says that when he was 12 years old Frank Rinehart physically challenged him and once disciplined him by punching him in the face.

''My mother's view would be, 'Let the ones who can't swim drown. Survival of the fittest - there can be no place for weak men.' ''

When he was 27, Mr Hancock quietly dropped his stepfather's name and adopted his grandfather's name by deed poll.


----------



## Julia (24 June 2012)

So we should assume that John Hancock is absolutely without bias, can relate the family history entirely objectively?

I don't know too many families where different members will not give a different account of the same events.

His remarks may well just reflect his own sense of inadequacy rather than any accurate perception of his mother's attitude toward him.

I have no idea.  I don't know any of them.  I just find the apparent unquestioning acceptance of the point of view of the aggrieved children a bit unreasonable without hearing the other side.


----------



## Macquack (24 June 2012)

Julia said:


> So we should assume that John Hancock is *absolutely without bias*, can relate the family history entirely objectively?
> 
> I don't know too many families where different members will not give a different account of the same events.
> 
> ...




We won't hear Gina Rinehart's side of the story. 

What John Hancock says seems fair and reasonable to me.


----------



## Julia (24 June 2012)

Macquack said:


> What John Hancock says seems fair and reasonable to me.



Of course it does.
And I'm sure you'd be privy to all that has gone on in that family.


----------



## dutchie (25 June 2012)

Can't but agree with the Greens that we should ban Gina from having a stake in any media so that she does not have the ability to badly influence the "public interest".

Thats one thing this country can do without. We certainly don't want individuals or minorities unfairly determining what is best for us, in the "public interest"

Go the hypocrites! Ooops I mean Go the Greens!



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/med...ck-gina-rinehart/story-e6frg996-1226407045061


----------



## Miss Hale (25 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Rinehart treated us as inferiors, says son
> 
> Lauren Quaintance
> Published: June 24, 2012 - 3:00AM   From the Sunday Age
> ...




I find it interesting that when John Hancock decided to drop his adoptive name he chose his grandfather's name and not his father's name.  Could he not himself be contributing to 'airbrushing his father from the family narrative'?


----------



## numbercruncher (25 June 2012)

It seems that Gina believes that we have such a shortage of workers in this country/world that we cant even find english speaking ones !

Surely the Rinehart fanbois here can see this woman is taking the obsolute piss ?




> Q&A, June 4:
> 
> The Greens leader, Senator Christine Milne: ''Gina Rinehart had asked to lower the English language literacy standards for people being brought in. That's been something that unions have fought for 100 years for decent occupational health and safety standards … ''




http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/rinehart-didnt-start-the-fire-20120624-20way.html


----------



## Knobby22 (25 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I find it interesting that when John Hancock decided to drop his adoptive name he chose his grandfather's name and not his father's name.  Could he not himself be contributing to 'airbrushing his father from the family narrative'?




What did his father do to be so universally disliked?


----------



## jersey10 (25 June 2012)

On 4 corners now..


----------



## MrBurns (25 June 2012)

Interesting, now that I know more I agree she has to be watched.

Cant understand why a woman just cant give her kids money to set them up, she's certainly made life hard for herself.

Also cant understand how a man as successful as Lang could link up with the likes of Rose.


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Interesting, now that I know more I agree she has to be watched.
> 
> Cant understand why a woman just cant give her kids money to set them up, she's certainly made life hard for herself.
> 
> Also cant understand how a man as successful as Lang could link up with the likes of Rose.




It also supports the old belief, you don't skip a generation in your will. Lang should have left it to Gina and then she leaves it to her kids. Saves all this garbage, everyone knows where they stand.


----------



## numbercruncher (25 June 2012)

Kids have been so shafted that they are now forced to seek independent help to try secure their birthright.




> THE only son of mining billionaire Gina Rinehart, John Hancock, plans to gain access to a family trust worth many millions of dollars with the help of a mystery Chinese benefactor.
> Mr Hancock told the ABC's Four Corners that he was seeking to remove Ms Rinehart as trustee and examine the history of the trust, control of which has fuelled an inter-generational feud.
> Mr Hancock and two of his sisters have accused their mother of serious misconduct in the administration of the trust, but their claim is strongly denied by Ms Rinehart.
> Advertisement: Story continues below
> ...


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Kids have been so shafted that they are now forced to seek independent help to try secure their birthright.




Birthright  they sound like a bunch of spoilt little rich kids. Lang was a dick for putting them in the will.


----------



## banco (25 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Birthright  they sound like a bunch of spoilt little rich kids. Lang was a dick for putting them in the will.




I seem to recall a certain spoiled rich kid fighting over daddy's inheritance with her father's 3rd wife in the '90's.


----------



## numbercruncher (26 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Birthright  they sound like a bunch of spoilt little rich kids. Lang was a dick for putting them in the will.




Your love for your idol Gina runs deeper than the deepest ocean.

Could all of these people be wrong ? 

Do you have proof that the children are spoilt kids ? Do you have proof that Lang was a dick ? Its more like Lang was a smart man who left his now adult Grandchildren a substantial inheritence that hasnt been destributed as he wished.


----------



## numbercruncher (26 June 2012)

Seems someone is threatening to take their bat n ball and go home ?



> MINING magnate Gina Rinehart says her company Hancock Prospecting may sell its interest in Fairfax Media if "suitable conditions" aren't offered to it.






> Former adviser to Ms Rinehart, Michael Yabsley says there is no doubt the billionaire wants the influence of owning media interests.
> 
> "The media has always driven her nuts," Mr Yabsley told ABC TV.




Control the media and you can sway the opinion of the impressionable masses.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/rinehart-threatens-to-sell-her-stake-in-fairfax/story-e6freuyi-1226408507526


----------



## nulla nulla (26 June 2012)

I'm glad she is'nt my mum.


----------



## numbercruncher (26 June 2012)

These poor people denied their birthright and dragged through such a public debacle.



> MINING billionaire Gina Rinehart's son John Hancock says he has all the bad things associated with wealth and none of the good, cut off from the family fortune years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/gine-rineharts-son-sues-over-family-trust/story-fn7x8me2-1226408313085


----------



## numbercruncher (26 June 2012)

nulla nulla said:


> I'm glad she is'nt my mum.




I hear you Nulla - me too how embarassing all your mates knowing how she treats you and your siblings, making what should be a fruitful life stressful and full of litigation. :bad:


----------



## Miss Hale (26 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Seems someone is threatening to take their bat n ball and go home ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, but to really control it she would have to own all media outlets and there be no ABC in existence.  That is never going to happen, and if she turned the SMH and The Age into what everyone seems to think she will, would those papers be taken seriously?  No, they woudn't.  Even Yabsley told her she was wasting her time. I really think all this media control thing is just a furphy.


----------



## joea (26 June 2012)

Well I heard on the radio that Gina is interested in the media because she wants to see the correct facts on climate change be edited.
I for one know there is a lot of rubbish out there.
Little grubs have been coming out from under their rocks everywhere with a load of rubbish.
In any case why has the media attacked her on something she may do, but have no proof.?
joea


----------



## numbercruncher (26 June 2012)

joea said:


> Well I heard on the radio that Gina is interested in the media because she wants to see the correct facts on climate change be edited.
> I for one know there is a lot of rubbish out there.
> Little grubs have been coming out from under their rocks everywhere with a load of rubbish.
> In any case why has the media attacked her on something she may do, but have no proof.?
> joea






Why do you have so much faith in her intentions ?

If all thats being said is rubbish from grubs you must have some solid evidence that her intentions are honest and genuine ?

Or just another fan of her bank balance ?


----------



## joea (26 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Why do you have so much faith in her intentions ?




Why do you and the media have so much doubt in her intentions.?

I am not rich, but have both poor people and millionaires as my friends.
It has never worried me before. But I certainly do not pre-judge people.
An old mill manager an I, had an agreement to always give a person an opportunity to commit
to a job. 
When they moved on, they always come and thanked us for the opportunity.
joea


----------



## IFocus (26 June 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Yes, but to really control it she would have to own all media outlets and there be no ABC in existence.  That is never going to happen, and if she turned the SMH and The Age into what everyone seems to think she will, would those papers be taken seriously?  No, they woudn't.  Even Yabsley told her she was wasting her time. I really think all this media control thing is just a furphy.





How did Murdock go in the UK then?


----------



## IFocus (26 June 2012)

Quite a good read from Ellen Fanning worth a read if you are interested in what the future might look like.


Remembering Lang



> Sir Charles Court endured a vicious, personal campaign against him which he attributed to his refusal to allow Hancock carte blanche in his efforts to develop the iron ore deposits he had discovered in the Pilbara region, in the north of the state




http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/remembering-lang/280/


----------



## drsmith (26 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Quite a good read from Ellen Fanning worth a read if you are interested in what the future might look like.
> 
> 
> Remembering Lang
> ...



Are you now getting stuck into the poor rich Rineharts.

It's just a sad reminder that money doesn't always buy happiness.


----------



## Bonk (26 June 2012)

I dont think the media is that important overall . It may well be a tool , to attack something like mine / resource taxes in the future . The point is the Pilbara region is neglected , and a harsh place for everybody. I lived there for years . Change has to happen some way!!


----------



## Julia (26 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Why do you have so much faith in her intentions ?
> 
> If all thats being said is rubbish from grubs you must have some solid evidence that her intentions are honest and genuine ?
> 
> Or just another fan of her bank balance ?



Why on earth would joea be a "fan of her bank balance"?
She's unlikely to be sharing it with him.
Just silly.


----------



## numbercruncher (26 June 2012)

You dont think that Joea is a fan because of her extreme wealth ? What other reason do you think it is ?


Cant be for how she treats her family , I doubt he is that callous ?

Could be her fearlessness ? That can be a admirable trait ....

He is convinced that she has noble and honest intentions though and I cant work out how one comes to that conclusion.


----------



## Calliope (26 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> He is convinced that she has noble and honest intentions though and I cant work out how one comes to that conclusion.




Of course you can't. Such things are beyond the comprehension of a loony leftie. You seem so concerned about her family.:1luvu: If you have such tender feelings for them Cruncher, why don't you hive of some of your union funds and start a benefit for them. I'm sure your members won't mind getting ripped off.


----------



## sails (26 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Why on earth would joea be a "fan of her bank balance"?
> She's unlikely to be sharing it with him.
> Just silly.





Most of the posts from the left in this thread are all silly.  No more than derogatory banter from people with nothing better to do, imo.  Waste of time dropping in...


----------



## basilio (26 June 2012)

That Ellen Fanning story on how Lang Hangcok relentlessly attacked Premier Charles Court was an eyeopener. Well worth a read

Ellen is at pains to point out that Gina is nor an identikit of her father but it has always been clear she has followed his philosophy and practice very closely.  All good reasons for Liberal and Labour politicians to be wary of the power Gina Rinehart  will exercise  in her control of any media she owns. 

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature...ring-lang/280/


----------



## numbercruncher (26 June 2012)

That all a vocal handful of you guys can do , cant add debate so label people luni leftys or some such nonsense ....

Public opinion is deadset against this woman - the vocal handful barrack for her as some defacto face for the extreme right that they hold so dear ? I dont knowdo explain ....


----------



## Calliope (26 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> That all a vocal handful of you guys can do , cant add debate so label people luni leftys or some such nonsense ....
> 
> Public opinion is deadset against this woman - the vocal handful barrack for her as some defacto face for the extreme right that they hold so dear ? I dont knowdo explain ....




"I don't knowdo explain"  Are you on the booze? And now basilio has joined your hate campaign. You are getting down in the gutter. You are running scared with nothing to offer but childish drivel and envious spite for someone who is considerable smarter than anyone your mob can muster. Grow up!


----------



## sptrawler (26 June 2012)

What I don't understand, is how come everyone gets up in arms because a person is buying into a newspaper. Yet the same people don't mind a minority government bringing in massive new taxes, without going to an election. It's just stupid.
The government say Gina might have some sway in how the government is portrayed, yet this same government only has 30% public support. That means 70% generally disagree with them, why wouldn't a newspaper reporting reflect that?  
The general public make an informed decission on their political bias based on many inputs not just what they read. If anything labor have had a very good run from the media, when you take into consideration their abysmal record.


----------



## basilio (27 June 2012)

Just saw the 4 Corners doco on Gina Rinehart. Certainly gave me something to think about.

She is a ruthless juggernaut.  Currently the richest women in Australia and if her mine gets away probably the world. 

Her wealth isn't necessarily the problem.  The problem is her  determination to do whatever it takes to  keep and expand her power.  When you see what than means in the past its easy to see why we need to protect ourselves.


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2012)

basilio said:


> Her wealth isn't necessarily the problem.  The problem is her  determination to do whatever it takes to  keep and expand her power.  When you see what than means in the past its easy to see why we need to protect ourselves.




What successful person isn't determined and protect yourself from what?

When Kerry Packer owned a lot of media, how did we manage?
When Kerry O'Brien, constantly harrased the liberals and John Howard, why wasn't there an uproar then.
Just because a hopeless government, is using personal attacks and veiled threats, to try and mitigate abysmal performance. It doesn't follow that everyone has to swallow the politically motivated rhetoric.

What next rich people can't buy shares in any company that can notify the population in any way, be that newspaper, t.v, internet, billboards or any other form of mass media.


----------



## numbercruncher (27 June 2012)

I see Palmer is the next Billionaire to pack a sad and threaten to take his bat and ball ....



> CLIVE PALMER'S threat to challenge Wayne Swan for his seat of Lilley is beginning to wane, with the billionaire suggesting he may walk away if he fails in his attempt to ban lobbyists serving as Liberal Party office holders.
> The Queensland mining magnate met the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, again yesterday, after the pair had a yelling match in Melbourne last week over the change Mr Palmer wants to propose at this week's Liberal Party federal council meeting.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/its-...bott-bustup-20120626-210hp.html#ixzz1yvC03Rfa


----------



## Logique (27 June 2012)

basilio said:


> Just saw the 4 Corners doco on Gina Rinehart. Certainly gave me something to think about....



Yes interesting. She is one formidable and determined woman. I would not want to get on her bad side.


----------



## Calliope (27 June 2012)

Logique said:


> Yes interesting. She is one formidable and determined woman. I would not want to get on her bad side.



And as basilio says; 



> When you see what than means in the past its easy to see why we need to protect ourselves




Yes indeed! Basilio and Cruncher are to be commended for their bravery in trying to expose this evil genius to us. They could end up being marked men. Let's hope their anonymity is never blown.:enforcer:


----------



## sails (27 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> "I don't knowdo explain"  Are you on the booze? And now basilio has joined your hate campaign. You are getting down in the gutter. You are running scared with nothing to offer but childish drivel and envious spite for someone who is considerable smarter than anyone your mob can muster. Grow up!





And this hate campaigner is the same one who has "May peace be with you" in his signature...

Weird.


----------



## Calliope (27 June 2012)

sails said:


> And this hate campaigner is the same one who has "May peace be with you" in his signature...
> 
> Weird.




It is a thinly disguised Orwellian thing:

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."


----------



## basilio (27 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> It is a thinly disguised Orwellian thing:
> 
> "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. *Ignorance is strength.*"




Very, *very* apt.


----------



## Calliope (27 June 2012)

basilio said:


> Very, *very* apt.




Then you and your mate Cruncher are very strong indeed.


----------



## joea (27 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> You dont think that Joea is a fan because of her extreme wealth ? What other reason do you think it is ?
> 
> 
> Cant be for how she treats her family , I doubt he is that callous ?
> ...




No I am no particular fan of her or her money.
But if you go back to about January, Wayne Swan has beat up every "rich" private miner. Then the media start on them. To me it appears their basis mistake is they have money.

Basically Swan and the media are upset with them because they will not do what they tells them.

I just think if the situation with the miners and Labor government was not so " explosive" we might get some where.

What would be wrong with getting them together and discuss ( infrastructure, more tax, housing , etc) and sort something out. You just do not get anywhere in the current situation.

To make my point Julia Gillard apparently like "gashing her lips" about $500 billion of investment to be implemented in mining , gas, oil etc. Well with that much investment, someone must get rich.
joea p.s. i can only answer posts early or at the end of the day.
cheers.


----------



## IFocus (27 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> What I don't understand, is how come everyone gets up in arms because a person is buying into a newspaper. Yet the same people don't mind a minority government bringing in massive new taxes, without going to an election. It's just stupid.
> The government say Gina might have some sway in how the government is portrayed, yet this same government only has 30% public support. That means 70% generally disagree with them, why wouldn't a newspaper reporting reflect that?
> The general public make an informed decission on their political bias based on many inputs not just what they read. If anything labor have had a very good run from the media, when you take into consideration their abysmal record.





You can vote a government out but Gina's here for awhile longer.

If you read up on her fathers form then its clear what Gina's intentions could be.

Various UK governments understood the power of the press it can and will move governments.


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> You can vote a government out but Gina's here for awhile longer.
> 
> If you read up on her fathers form then its clear what Gina's intentions could be.
> 
> Various UK governments understood the power of the press it can and will move governments.




The press or newspaper in particular, is a dying media, readers and subscriptions are falling.
Lets say the worst happened and Gina got 3 seats on an 8 seat board, no lets say Gina gets 7 seats on an 8 seat board. Then she starts teling everyone what they can and can't write, unless it is unbiased reporting, it only appears attractive to the fanatical supporters.
Then the circulation falls, shareholders dump stock and the paper shuts down.
This fear campaign is just par for course for a flagging government any diversion other than takeit to the people to be judged. What is so hard about that?


----------



## banco (27 June 2012)

I get the impression she'd be happy (at least for now) with an unwritten agreement that Fairfax soft pedal it's climate change coverage but maintain the status quo on other stuff.


----------



## Julia (27 June 2012)

banco said:


> I get the impression she'd be happy (at least for now) with an unwritten agreement that Fairfax soft pedal it's climate change coverage but maintain the status quo on other stuff.



Interesting thought, banco.   I hadn't heard that even mentioned.  Can you say where the idea came from?

I don't think much of her chances of getting Fairfax journalists to go along with anything other than absolute sycophantic devotion to the notion of AGW.


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> You can vote a government out but Gina's here for awhile longer.
> 
> If you read up on her fathers form then its clear what Gina's intentions could be.
> 
> Various UK governments understood the power of the press it can and will move governments.




Well IFocus, it has all turned out a bit funny, the board say they won't give her a seat because they are worried about freedom of journalists.
Then it appears the board in the past have told journalists what to write, one wonders if it's not an old boys club.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/medi...art-fairfax-chairman-says-20120627-211x2.html

Also by Swan and Gillards bleating, they may be members.IMO One has to question who the baddies are here.


----------



## banco (27 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Interesting thought, banco.   I hadn't heard that even mentioned.  Can you say where the idea came from?
> 
> I don't think much of her chances of getting Fairfax journalists to go along with anything other than absolute sycophantic devotion to the notion of AGW.




Most of her press releases have focused on climate change and even Gina Rinehart must realise that getting Fairfax to do a 180 on all of their editorial positions isn't practical.  If there was a gentleman's agreement editors could spike stories and move them from page 1 to page 13.


----------



## joea (28 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Also by Swan and Gillards bleating, they may be members.IMO One has to question who the baddies are here.




Once upon a time, in the good old days, the media edited the news. Now they want to "forecast" the news
 or politics in such a way that they are attempting to give future direction to history(or news).

Once upon a time in the good old days, policy was compiled by a party in the party room, made public, debated in the lower
house and then voted on.
NOW, Labor leaks some words to the media about a policy (that has not been fully compiled), challenge the Opposition to pass it, then get the s**ts" because it did not happen. Then they take it to a personal level.

Labor government is "DICTATORIAL", and that that's.

I  believe the "goodies and the baddies" need to understand the word "COMPROMISE". And throw in some integrity for good measure.
joea


----------



## drsmith (28 June 2012)

It might do them good at Fairfax if someone shook their cage a little.

Their live political blog "The Pulse" increasingly became a Labor cheer squad as the afternoon progressed.


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2012)

drsmith said:


> It might do them good at Fairfax if someone shook their cage a little.
> 
> Their live political blog "The Pulse" increasingly became a Labor cheer squad as the afternoon progressed.




Maybe their obvious labor leanings, are being reflected in their performance.
Being cheerleaders for a party that only has 30% public support, is dumb. I'm suprised by Roger Corbet I thought he had more brains than that, but he has been out of the mainstream cut and thrust of leading edge business.

It is the same scenario as Gina getting control and becomming cheerleader for the Libs, it is the road to nowhere.
Only so many people want to read crap, most want unbiased information to make a balanced judgement. If they can't get that they won't buy the paper. Despite the crap Conroy, Gillard and Brown say.


----------



## IFocus (29 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe their obvious labor leanings,




Paul Sheehan labor leanings since when?


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Paul Sheehan labor leanings since when?




I thought we were discussing the general political leaning of the paper. A bit like everyone says the Australian has a leaning towards the coalition. Didn't realise we were actually discussing individual journalist, my mistake.


----------



## sails (29 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> I thought we were discussing the general political leaning of the paper. A bit like everyone says the Australian has a leaning towards the coalition. Didn't realise we were actually discussing individual journalist, my mistake.





Don't worry, SP - it's just IF clutching at straws again...


----------



## tinhat (31 March 2013)

Apparently if you need to build an iron ore mine in Australia the go-to people are the Koreans:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/rinehart-spurs-7b-mine-spree-20130329-2gz4j.html


----------



## skc (1 April 2013)

tinhat said:


> Apparently if you need to build an iron ore mine in Australia the go-to people are the Koreans:
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/rinehart-spurs-7b-mine-spree-20130329-2gz4j.html




Samsung is the head contractor only. I am guessing a Korean name was chosen because Roy Hill is 30% owned by Koreans / Japs and the project needs the Korean development bank loans to proceed.

A great majority of the work will be subcontracted out as various $300-800m sized packages to more familiar names listed locally. 

BTW the project has yet to fully secure debt finance so it may or may not go ahead at this stage.


----------

