This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

I dislike Daniel Andrews intensely

Jump to new

What is in the agreement, and what implications does it have for Victoria?
 
Like I said in another thread, they are all as bad as one another.
 
Sounds like Daniel has got Victoria, the home of the invincible, into a position it will end up having to live up to.
It's o.k coming into Government and cancelling contracts, then paying a $hit load of money to enact it, well leaving Australia between a China and the U.S might take it to a whole new level.
Apparently the U.S isn't happy with Dan's belt and road deal with China.
Might have to get the CFMEU and the MUA guys to help.
 
dutchie said:
Andrews is a traitor.
Click to expand...
Politics aside, I do see it as inappropriate for a state government to be dealing with a foreign national government in a manner that's contrary to the views of the Australian Government.

That's akin to an employee defying senior management and doing precisely what they refused to approve. By all means argue the point and make the case but ultimately authority does need to be respected and when it comes to dealings with foreign governments that properly sits with the federal government not the states.

Same goes for any state.
 
Yes a very awkward situation developing,it will be very interesting to watch this one unfold, could take the foreign affairs department to a whole new level.

It really highlights how the States can do what they like, yet the Federal Government will take the can, for what started as a State initiative.
 
chiff said:
Are we at war with China?
Click to expand...
No but from memory, borrowing money from overseas, caused Gough a lot of grief.
There appears to be an unwritten protocol, i guess it stops all the Governments from doing backdoor deals with all and sundry.
No doubt this will come to a head, sooner or later, it usually does.
 
chiff said:
Are we at war with China?
Click to expand...
The issue as I see it is that international relations are a federal matter not a state matter.

If the feds were happy with it then no problem. If they're not happy with it well then that's an issue if Victoria still goes ahead.
 
The challenges of a federation, or are we a confederation, Daniel?
 
Smurf1976 said:
The issue as I see it is that international relations are a federal matter not a state matter.

If the feds were happy with it then no problem. If they're not happy with it well then that's an issue if Victoria still goes ahead.
Click to expand...

If the feds were not happy with it for political reasons then it voids their grievances IMO.

Especially if helps Victoria repair its budget before anyone else.
 
chiff said:
Belately I find out that the attack on Andrews has been orchestrated by News Corp.No surprises there.
Click to expand...
I'm no fan of News Corp's version of news but ultimately I do question what's going on here.

A state government doing deals with a foreign national government, and a major one at that, is somewhat akin to the office clerk deciding to defy the CEO and board and sign a contract with a company they specifically stated to not do business with. A contract which just happens to affect the entire direction of the company.

Regardless of the arguments for or against the deal and China more generally, such a matter would seem to be one for the Australian Government not any state government.

I'd be saying exactly the same thing if it were SA, NSW or Tas (all Liberal) doing a deal with the US. All fine if the Australian Government has no objection but if the feds do say no well then the state ought to respect that international relations are outside their jurisdiction.

On the other hand, in defence of Dan Andrews, it could be argued that the Australian Government has been so ineffective on all manner of things for quite some time that individuals, businesses and state governments had no real choice other than to take matters into their own hands.

There's a number of policy areas where the feds have given away control in practice simply by not doing anything, thus forcing others to act, which then usually results in the feds getting all excited and starting a fight when they realise someone else has in practice stepped in and set national policy. Listed company AGL found themselves in the firing line at one point with that one over a different issue and it dragged on for quite some time.
 
Well the main question is what happens if Vic default ?

Does the Commonwealth Government have a liability as a guarantor ?

If we consider that the NT has leased its harbour to China and the NT is a Commonwealth responsibility it all gets rather murky as to what is acceptable and what is not

Personally, I believe we need to be more self reliant in financing things, there is plenty of money within OZ that would happily invest in Govt Bonds.

Days gone by there were State Bonds, Federal Bonds and Infrastructure Bonds and to me that is the best way to go. Sell the Bonds to local investors first and only the shortfall being available to OS investors, repaid in OZ dollars on maturity

With the vast sums available in Super Funds surely we can finance our needs from there
 
Not into this much-but who do state governments borrow money from?Is it only because it is the Chinese?I know that the French own utilities in Australia-sold be state governments etc.
 
And what exactly does this have to do with Daniel Andrews ?

Are you saying it's the Victorian Govt making the CCP angry and not the federal Govt ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...