Federal Labor Party discussion

[sptrawler]

For all crops, therefore, using a recharge‐area assessment and a 3rd order of magnitude relationship between recharge and extraction, water rather than soil is the factor limiting crop production.
A more precautionary approach would use a 4th order of magnitude multiplier (1/10,000th of the study area) and determine that groundwater could support 12,000 ha of irrigated agriculture (ignoring other uses). Under this assumption, the availability of water would pose a far greater limit to crop production than the availability of suitable soil. And that doesn’t take into account competition for groundwater from other uses.

Using the prospectivity method, we estimate that the area of potentially groundwater‐irrigable land in northern Australia to be around 40,000‐60,000 ha. This constitutes around 0.4% of northern Australia’s potentially class 1+2 annual cropping soils, and approximately 1%, 2%, 0.2% and 0.4% of the class 1+2 soils for perennial crops, rice, forestry and improved pasture, respectively.
Crop production in northern Australia is limited by water, not soil.

The current total surface water storage capacity in northern Australia is ca 11,170 GL (Figure 12, Cresswell et al., this report). If we exclude the Ord River Dam, which is already accounted for in irrigated agriculture (and for which there are limited opportunities for similar storages in the north), the volume drops to ca 1,170. Assuming that all this water was available for agriculture (and it isn’t – much is lost via evaporation and is used for other purposes, such as domestic supply), it could support ca 80,000 – 120,000 ha of irrigated agriculture. As outlined above, this is sufficient to irrigate only a very small proportion of the potentially suitable agricultural soils. Irrigated agriculture in the north is likely to be water rather than soil limited.

I may not get up north, but I do read what others have found and studied up there.

If you're such a firm believer then

* How many hectares do you see being able to grow crops?
* How much would this increase current crop production for Australia?

I just notice in you post, it does seem to contradict your post earlier of the day, that poor soil was the main problem.

Also seems to support my argument, that it is a lack of reliable water, that is the problem.

Also if you believe the climate experts, the north is going to get wetter and the south is going to get dryer. But that wouldn't fit with the argument would it.lol

Also lol, where you say you may not get up north but you read.
It seems you read between your first post at 1.10 and second at 4.20

 

[sydboy007]

Well Sydboy, I see you at least read something to make some basis to an argument rather than just regurgitating, Labor anti Abbott rhetoric.
I, unlike yourself am not knowledgable enough in the subject to be able to answer the question of how much land, or indeed how much increase in production.
However, with the draughts we are having in the South of the country and the drying of the Murray, Darling.
It is a feasable direction to build an increased agricultural industry, which is a sustainable, renewing and growing market place.

Read what Du Pont said with regards its future.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...-exit-from-paints-business-to-focus-on-farms/

It really doesn't bother me, I've run my race. But I can see the only world growth market, that we have the inside running on is agriculture.

We have a very flat topography that lends itself to irrigation.
We have over 300 days of sunshine/annum up north, which lends itself to crop growth.
We have a lot of per capita money at the moment, that should be spent wisely.
We have a massive growing food shortage, just to the north of us and they are sick of rice.
If we develop farming techniques to provide, livestock and feed for them.
Also we don't need green houses to grow lots of vegies, I think it is only limited by lack of vission and leadership.

Better still Syd, if you think what I'm saying is full of you know what.
You tell me what is going to maintain our kids living standards, going forward?
You tell me what we are going to do better than the major blocks, U.S, Europe,China, Japan etc. In enough quantity to support our top 10 lifestyles?

I tell you what we have got, that China, Japan, Europe and the U.S hasn't got, a lot of land and a small population. Also most of our land mass, falls in a favourable climatic belt.

I'm not saying we can't increase crop production up north.

My whole argument is will Tony waste the money like Howard did with the Adelaide Darwin rail line? i can see the Nationals salivating at the prospect of billions of dollars in spending in their electorates, with little to no cost beneft analysis being done. I'd also argue that with the lack of infrastructure building over the last couple of decades that the ROI on infrastructure where the majority of us live will pay a higher dividend than up north.

It will take years to properly research what areas are suitable for what crops, and then ther's the issue that for every hectare of savanah you turn into pasture releases something like 140-220 tones of carbon into the atmosphere. From what I've read you would have to allow GM crops to be grown up North, otherwise yields would be too low from diseases and pests, or the use of pesticies would be so high as to make the crops uneconomic.

Pretty much everything I've read on this topic indicates it's is very unlikley we could double food production by increasing agriculture up north. If you can show me any research that does, I'll happily read it. I don't generally talk about something if I don't have at least a modest level of understanding, or I'm quite upfront in saying i don't really know.

I also get a feeling we're talking about 2 different "go north" policies. You seem to be focusing on the coastal area, where as Abbotts policy seems to focus on a lot of the the inland areas.

Rainfall still occurs near the coast, where it is flat. This makes building dams a challenge. CSIRO’s 2009 analysis did find that 600 gigalitres of ground water is available and could irrigate 40-60,000 hectares. Let’s put this into perspective: Cubbie Station alone has about 460 gigalitres of water licences and about 96,000 hectares of irrigated and dry land at its disposal.

As David Adamson has written:

In the north, Stage 2 of the Ord irrigation scheme has cost $300 million and adds over 13,000 hectares to irrigation. The entire stage 2 has been leased by the Chinese company Shanghai Zhongfu for the next 50 years. They initially proposed a $700 m investment to develop a sugar industry. They now propose planting sorghum to produce ethanol: a sugar monoculture was likely to attract pests that would undermine profits. But changing the crop won’t make a difference: planned profits from cotton in the 1960s quickly evaporated in rising costs from pesticides needed to control an influx of pests. Sugar was no different and nor will sorghum be.

As a country we have just allocated over $10 billion to fix the mess created in the Murray-Darling Basin. Why would we want to create a similar mess in the north? The north is not suitable for intensive food production, it never has been, nor will it ever be. I simply go back to Bruce Davidson’s fundamental question: why would we open the public purse and spend billions on low or negative returns when there better returns from the expenditure elsewhere?

I can see there is probably some potential to make better use of the water that flows out to see from some of the Norther rives and to be piped down to Perth. If you're interested in that then this video may interest you as it's feasible to pipe water from Tasmania to Victoria using a gravity fed system - Labor and Liberal have both IGNORED this posibility- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADVB3DqEYK0

You seem to focus on "making things" as the only way to prosperity. The Germans do it well, but I'd argue it's the IP embeded in their manufactures that is the real secret to their wealth. We can do it - Resemd / CSL / Cochlear / Codan show what we can achieve. Pitty no government in Australia is able to foster more of this kind of intelectual devlopment. Gogle generates billions in profits every quarter, yet what does it produce? It has a secret recepie to deliver useful search results better than the competion - I flirt with yahoo and bing every so often but google always gives me better results so they get my business.

You seem very interested in this topic so can I suggest you have a read of the below to help better inform your reasoning

http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation...rthern-Australia-Sustainable-Development.aspx

http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/ass...g-term_Sustainable_Food_Production_Stage1.pdf

http://nalwt.gov.au/files/NLAW.pdf

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern/2008/11/22/the-northern-myth-chapter-1/

 

[sptrawler]

You seem to focus on "making things" as the only way to prosperity. The Germans do it well, but I'd argue it's the IP embeded in their manufactures that is the real secret to their wealth. We can do it - Resemd / CSL / Cochlear / Codan show what we can achieve. Pitty no government in Australia is able to foster more of this kind of intelectual devlopment. Gogle generates billions in profits every quarter, yet what does it produce? It has a secret recepie to deliver useful search results better than the competion - I flirt with yahoo and bing every so often but google always gives me better results so they get my business.
]

Funny you mention CSL and Cochlear, then in the same breath suggest Australian Governments don't foster it.
Both those companies, were spun out of CSIRO from memory.
The other problem with a small country trying to make money out of this sort of industry, is it gets bought up by overseas and moves offshore.
Which has happened with both those companies, their manufacturing and major markets are overseas. Also if they are successful their major shareholders are overseas.

 

[sydboy007]

Funny you mention CSL and Cochlear, then in the same breath suggest Australian Governments don't foster it.
Both those companies, were spun out of CSIRO from memory.
The other problem with a small country trying to make money out of this sort of industry, is it gets bought up by overseas and moves offshore.
Which has happened with both those companies, their manufacturing and major markets are overseas.

I'd argue what the Govt old off back in the 90s, and what they've become are not particularly related.

The sad fact is Australina Governments have ignored building up companies that generate wealth from knowledge.

A barbie doll sells for $20 but China gets 35 cents a doll, yet they do most / all of the manufacturing work.

We can compete in some niche manufacturing, but I'd argue we'll have more chance of success if we build up the IP produced in this country and then colect the royalities on its use. The CSIRO is receiving over $500M in royalities for its WiFi patents. An iPhone is physicaly worth $200-250 yet sells for $800. Apple gets a large chunk of that profit margin.

 

[sptrawler]

I'd argue what the Govt old off back in the 90s, and what they've become are not particularly related.

The sad fact is Australina Governments have ignored building up companies that generate wealth from knowledge.

A barbie doll sells for $20 but China gets 35 cents a doll, yet they do most / all of the manufacturing work.

We can compete in some niche manufacturing, but I'd argue we'll have more chance of success if we build up the IP produced in this country and then colect the royalities on its use. The CSIRO is receiving over $500M in royalities for its WiFi patents. An iPhone is physicaly worth $200-250 yet sells for $800. Apple gets a large chunk of that profit margin.

Yes and CSIRO had to drag American multinationals through the courts for years, to get those royalties.

Like I said, if you think we are going to make enough break throughs in technology, ahead of the U.S, Europe and Asia, to support our lifestyle. Your dreaming.
If it's any good the U.S will buy it, or China will.
I remember when the L.A olympics were on, the statement was made that L.A's turnover was the same as Australias GDP.
IMO we are living on borrowed time.

 

[noco]

Do we have the new Rudd or the old Rudd?

Not only has Janet Albrechtsen summed up Rudd but the people smugglers are well aware of Rudd's modus operandi and they don't need to be told so by Tony Abboott or Scott Morrison.

This PNG debacle is a TRFU along with his past on pink batts and the education revolution.What a laughing stock around the world Australia must be.

What next Mr. Rudd?????????????

Please resign and join Juliar. You make a good pair to be known as TGRFU.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...rudd-rises-again/story-e6frg7bo-1226683973693

 

[moXJO]

We already have guys growing in the desert using different tech. I think rio tinto was also using waste water to grow hundreds of thousands of hectares of crops. Another mob were using sea water down in SA. Becoming a food bowl is a good idea.

 

[bunyip]

Tony Abbot’s vision for northern Australian agriculture is not as far-fetched as some people seem to think. Certainly he’s kidding himself with his comment about 100 dams. But they wouldn’t be needed anyway if the right area was targeted for agriculture.
One of the northern areas with enormous agricultural potential is the Gulf country hinterland in QLD. I know that country reasonably well, having travelled extensively in that region, bought cattle out of there, and at one time I inspected a number of properties there with a view to buying a grazing enterprise.
The region contains tens of millions of acres of flat to gently undulating fertile black soil country that could grow a wide variety of agricultural crops with the help of irrigation. Much of this land is sparsely timbered, meaning minimal clearing required to establish cropping land. It has a warm climate and little rainfall for seven or eight months of the year, making it perfect for farming if water can be added to the equation. There are a number of big and reliable rivers that would lend themselves to water harvesting via off-stream ring tanks similar to what are used in the cotton growing areas of Queensland’s Darling Downs region, and further west in the St George area.
The area is much closer to Asian markets than most of the established agricultural areas of Australia. There’s an established port at Townsville to the east, and it’s only a short distance to potential ports in the Gulf.

One of the biggest bugbears with northern agriculture is the wildlife....pigs, roos, birds. The rice growing experiment at Humpty Doo south of Darwin in the 1950’s was brought undone largely due to millions of magpie geese destroying the crop.
But the biggest issue with agriculture is always the price of the commodity produced – farmers just can’t function unless their crops are worth more than the cost of production.

 

[sails]

Labor expecting public anger over budgetary cuts to pay for asylum seeker proposal

LABOR MPs are bracing for a voter backlash over Budget cuts that will have to soon be announced to cover the cost of Kevin Rudd's asylum seeker crackdown.

Treasurer Chris Bowen is preparing to release an economic statement within days that will contain significant new spending cuts and pose a challenge to Labor's political momentum.

The government has pledged to detail the cost of its plan to send asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea, which is likely to run into billions of dollars.

All extra spending will be offset by cuts, which are likely to be even deeper than anticipated because of expected further declines in tax revenue.

Read more: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-seeker-proposal/story-fnihsrf2-1226683980782

 

[Calliope]

Labor expecting public anger over budgetary cuts to pay for asylum seeker proposal

Read more: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-seeker-proposal/story-fnihsrf2-1226683980782

Whether it's Boats, Budgets or Rudd Bluster the news on all fronts this morning spells disaster for Labor and a nightmare for the next government. I think Rudd is following Gillard's scorched earth policy.

There’s a stream of bad news this morning for the Australian federal government budget balance.
There are reports of a scramble for yet more savings programs, revenue shortfalls including Rio Tinto not being liable for resources tax, and a potential NBN cost blowout.
The AFR reports that ministers will be looking another $6 billion in savings that has been lost since the budget was delivered just over two months ago.
With the government already having announced a $3.9 billion change to fringe benefits tax to fund its just-announced border protection policy change involving sending boat arrivals to PNG, and billions in cuts already made in recent years under Wayne Swan, the talks on more savings are said to be “stressful”.
The Fin reports that “company tax, capital gains tax and income tax receipts well below what was expected two months ago”.
Over at The Australian, it’s reported Rio Tinto has decided it won’t be liable to pay any resources tax this year. This is expected to put pressure on the modest forecast of $700 million in revenue this financial year from the tax, which has been repeatedly downgraded in terms of expectations and failed to raised a single dollar in its first year of operation.
And the paper also reports that the NBN could face a cost blowout in the order of $20 billion or more, with contractors expected to be asking for pay increases of 20-40% in contract renegotiations over the coming years.
Newly-installed federal Treasurer Chris Bowen is widely regarded as a good ministerial performer but he is facing an extraordinary challenge to outline how he will return the budget to surplus over time.
An update on the budget bottom line will be released ahead of the election and it’s expected to be grim. Both sides of politics will need to have answers for voters.

http://au.businessinsider.com/where...news-for-australias-budget-bottom-line-2013-7

 

[sails]

From the SMH...labor caught lying...again...

Porky pies fly thick and fast as pollies log in for broadband boost

The most deceptive Labor claim, according to Mr Brown and opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull, was that its NBN was "free" while the Coalition's would cost $5000.

"It's outrageous," Mr Turnbull said. "It's very, very, very dishonest ... and the worst part about it is it's being done with taxpayers' money".

Veterans Affairs Minister Warren Snowdon distributed advertising to his Alice Springs electorate with a headline saying that under the Liberal NBN "you pay $5000 or are left disconnected from Labor's NBN". Under Labor's plan "connection to the NBN is free", he said.

When approached by Fairfax Media, none of the relevant people within the Labor Party could defend Mr Snowdon's claim.

After being sent a range of the Labor advertisements, the new Communications Minister, Anthony Albanese, said through a spokesman that "every day from now until the election we will point out the superiority of Labor's national broadband network over the Coalition's inadequate fraudband alternative".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ies-log-in-for-broadband-boost-20130723-2qhj5.

 

[db94]

It seems that Rudd knew the budget was gonna blow out. Expect this video to be played every ad break on tv till the election http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYcgM5H-uH4

The fact is that he spent too much money when not needed and the party has devised some pretty poor policies (nbn could cost $60 bn!!)

 

[noco]

You can’t argue with fact…This says it all really…





I DON’T THINK THE AUTHOR OF THIS CRITIQUE
WILL BE VOTING LABOR !!! NO ONE SHOULD, AFTER READING THIS.











You hear that Australia? You know what that is?? It’s the sound of laughter. Thats right.......laughter. The entire Labor party is laughing at us.......because they actually think we are THAT stupid. I cannot begin to explain how totally embarrassed I am as an Australian right now.



Thank you Labor for proving once again that you have absolutely no respect for the role of Prime Minister in this country, and that our highest office is nothing more than your political play thing. What a way to tell the world that we are a complete and utter joke !! No, it wasn't enough that you have subjected us to this three ring circus of a government. It wasn't enough that you completely drained our finances, but now, you have gone and completely embarrassed this nation on the international stage - again! No, you didn't do it for any greater good, no, you didn't do it in the best interests of our people, no, you did it for your own personal and political agenda. Nothing more. You are supposed to be representing the people of this country, not yourselves, but apparently, that is a concept that is completely lost on you.



At this exact moment, I can barely express into words how fundamentally you disgust me!!! Three years ago YOU, as a party, stood before the world and told us that you had to change the leader of OUR country because a ‘good government had gone bad’, and it had gone bad because of Rudd. That was your statement, not ours, and, by the way, whilst we're on the subject, that’s OUR job to do, not yours, you bunch of arrogant self serving hypocrites and scumbags!

If you don't like who's PM, call a general election!



So what now Labor ? Has Rudd suddenly come good? What, has he found some spare time during his time on the back-bench and on his world tour to go to leadership school? Learned how to deal with his 2 year old type tantrums? So since then, you've been telling us and everybody with a microphone what a fantastic leader Julia was, and how she was the best person to run this country. I swear I remember hearing that many times. So once again Labor, was that just all more self serving lies and deceit ? Apparently so.



Do you want to know how I know, with absolute certainty? You blokes are just a bunch of self centred, self preserving, arrogant, egotistically ENTRENCHED LIARS? Because you just fired that 'supposed great leader’ you for three years espoused, and replaced her with the very bloke you previously told the entire world, was INCAPABLE at being a leader. Are you kidding? Wow! How fundamentally bad do you need to be as a leader for that to occur? In fact, how is that even allowed? We have a bloke as PM that even one of your own MPs is on record as calling a ‘psychopath’. “Rudd is a ‘psychopath with a giant ego. His chaotic and deeply offensive style of leadership, etc". Great choice fella’s. That’s the way to let the cream rise to the top!



No, I'll tell you what you've done. All you have proved over the past few years is that, as a party, you really don't give a DAMN about this country, and that you are only really in this gig for yourselves - period! The number of members who have jumped ship with this change, is disgusting and indicates exactly how you feel about this country, and only goes to further re-inforce how self indulgent and totally selfish you really are.



If Labor retains even one seat at the next federal election as a result of this desperate, demeaning, and totally self-centred stunt, all it will prove to the world is just how gullible and stupid the Australian voting public is, and how easily manipulated its members can be. Let’s never forget that this perception is a simple re-hash of the feelings of that great ALP patriarch, Paul Keating, who, in 1993, said “Never under-estimate the stupidity of the Australian voting public”.



Shame on you Labor movement. Shame on you, and shame on every one of your self-centred, incompetent, arrogant, and inept federal politicians! I am sure none of you could lie straight in bed, even if your life depended upon it!!


BTW, Rudd will be on the Bolt report at 10 am on channel 10 on Sunday.

Just can't wait to see the fire works.

 

[dutchie]

Paul Keating, who, in 1993, said “Never under-estimate the stupidity of the Australian voting public”.

The best statement Paul Keating ever made.

Still very current.

"Shame on you Labor movement. Shame on you, and shame on every one of your self-centred, incompetent, arrogant, and inept federal politicians! I am sure none of you could lie straight in bed, even if your life depended upon it!!"

True, but more shame on voting public if they vote this lot in again.

 

[sptrawler]

Rud has caused such a huge, step shift in Labors policy and position, even on our forum it has caused a vacuum.

The robust debate and ribbing, has all but disappeared, I think Kev has managed the 'shock and awe'.

Can't wait to see the next phase.

It is funny how, stopping asylum seekers and getting rid of the carbon tax.
Has gone from negativity, to policy.

Guess it just depends who says it.

 

[bunyip]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...efugees_propaganda_lauding_rudd_and_the_gree/

 

[noco]

I think Rudd has bitten off more than he can chew with his PNG asylum seeker solution.

I also really don't think Peter O'Neill knows what he has let himself in for either.

Only time will tell.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...solution-sinking/story-fn9hm1gu-1226684649444

 

[springhill]

Kevin Rudd's commented this morning when being interviewed by Lisa Wilkinson that Australia's asylum seeker policy was 'not chipped in stone' and 'constantly had to be readjusted' since 2009-10. It was pointed out by Lisa that it was indeed the case since Mr Rudd dismantled the Pacific Solution. Somehow he even managed to blame the Syrian conflict, not sure how many Syrians have made it to Australia's shore through Indonesia. Not many I would suggest.

What do the 2 phrases 'not chipped in stone' and 'constantly having to be adjusted' say to the observation viewer?

Mr Rudd will be using these phrases far more frequently in the lead up to the election even more so again if Labor win.

It is a clear sign that he will be flip flopping, knee jerking, 'lurching to the right' and then back to the left again depending on what the polling that week indicates.

In essence, Mr Rudd has a 'policy' at this particular point in time but reserves the right to change it as he sees fit.

I found his demeanor to be quite rude in this segment too, constantly talking over Lisa and rephrasing her questions and once or twice even ignoring them.

What a misogynist.

I am not a big fan of either of them, so felt that I wasn't biased towards one or the other.

In all honesty, since his return as PM, this was his first poor speaking performance that I have seen.

 

[Calliope]

NOT AGAIN!!!

KEVIN Rudd has pledged to revive his 2008 pledge to halve homelessness by 2020, a promise that has been undermined by an increase in the number of people without a home.

He will look after them as soon as he has accommodated all the asylum seekers.

 

[Calliope]

The laying on of hands by St Kevin. If a teacher did this he would be sacked.