The Albanese government

[PZ99]

And are you saying that there isnt an equal and opposite side of the media?

Of course I'm saying that. No other media apart from Murdoch has the ability - let alone the motive - to post anti - Labor "Kick this mob out" headlines on the front page of a nationally distributed newspaper.

 

[sptrawler]

Of course I'm saying that. No other media apart from Murdoch has the ability - let alone the motive - to post anti - Labor "Kick this mob out" headlines on the front page of a nationally distributed newspaper.

The SMH, AGE, Guardian and ABC have been posting anti Scomo stuff since he atained office, so what? The people still decide.
Labor are in office, unglue yourself off the road, life is good all is well.
Or are you saying those combined dont have the same coverage as Murdoch?

 

[PZ99]

The SMH has been posting anti Scomo stuff since he atained office, so what? The people still decide.
Labor are in office, unglue yourself off the road, life is good all is well.

"unglue yourself off the road" = dumb personal comment.

"christ knows what has happened to you" = another dumb personal comment.

This isn't about ...... me. Play the ball not the man.

The SMH has posted anti labor stuff as well. Who cares?

 

[sptrawler]

"unglue yourself off the road" = dumb personal comment.

"christ knows what has happened to you" = another dumb personal comment.

This isn't about ...... me. Play the ball not the man.

The SMH has posted anti labor stuff as well. Who cares?

There is only one of us that has a fixation and it aint me. Lol

 

[PZ99]

There is only one of us that has a fixation and it aint me. Lol

Not me either mate. My original comment was that Murdoch couldn't swing this election.

So yeah life is good all is well. You don't seem too happy about it but I guess that's tough luck hey ?

 

[sptrawler]

Not me either mate. My original comment was that Murdoch couldn't swing this election.

So yeah life is good all is well. You don't seem too happy about it but I guess that's tough luck hey ?

Yes and he had fluck all to do with toppling Rudd and Turnbull, they did that all on their own, absolute fkwitts with selfie sticks.
To believe Murdoch swings elections, just shows a lack of perception, did he get Morrison in? Did he get Albanese in? Did he get Turnbull in? Who the hell did he get in?

 

[PZ99]

Yes and he had fluck all to do with toppling Rudd and Turnbull, they did that all on their own, absolute fkwitts.

That's your opinion. My opinion is he had a lot to do with toppling Rudd and Turnbull.

 

[sptrawler]

That's your opinion. My opinion is he had a lot to do with toppling Rudd and Turnbull.

Why are you the publisher for their upcoming book, two millionaires who were gjven the ar$e and cant come to terms with it.

 

[PZ99]

Why are you the publisher for their upcoming book, two millionaires who were gjven the ar$e and cant come to terms with it.

Yeah... well that stupid comment has just put you on my ignore list.

So if you want to tell me to "unglue yourself off the road", you'll have to do it the hard way.

That is.. log out of your account, read my post(s), copy and paste what you don't like, log back in, quote the 'horrendous' post that has offended you so much then add one of your usual stupid personal attacks complete with nefarious editing 10 minutes after you've posted it.

If you really think that trolling me is really worth all that effort - then knock yourself out.
But don't blame me when you come out of it looking second best.

:waves:​

P.S. please also consider removing all the "likes" on my posts that you don't really like. Thanks.

 

[SirRumpole]

The SMH, AGE, Guardian and ABC have been posting anti Scomo stuff since he atained office, so what? The people still decide.
Labor are in office, unglue yourself off the road, life is good all is well.
Or are you saying those combined dont have the same coverage as Murdoch?

Murdoch is pretty visceral when attacking Labor, usually pulling the emotional 'outrage' strings of its usually less sophisticated consumers.

The Age, Guardian, ABC etc usually go for a policy based approach and you have to remember that the Coalition were in for 9 years and made a lot of mistakes so they needed to be questioned fairly hard.

Now that Labor is in, you would expect the same sort of tough but fair scrutiny of their efforts, Murdoch will still keep attacking anything Labor does just because they are Labor.

 

[PZ99]

Murdoch is pretty visceral when attacking Labor, usually pulling the emotional 'outrage' strings of its usually less sophisticated consumers.

The Age, Guardian, ABC etc usually go for a policy based approach and you have to remember that the Coalition were in for 9 years and made a lot of mistakes so they needed to be questioned fairly hard.

Now that Labor is in, you would expect the same sort of tough but fair scrutiny of their efforts, Murdoch will still keep attacking anything Labor does just because they are Labor.

100%. And I think Peter Dutton in particular is going to have to moderate his attacks if he wants to be electable.
I noticed the ABC have already pulled up Katy Gallagher for getting her numbers wrong on the budget.

Katy Gallagher says the government has inherited 'the worst set of budget books' in history. Is that correct?

Finance Minister Katy Gallagher says the incoming Labor government has inherited the worst set of budget books in history. Is that correct? RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SirRumpole]

I noticed the ABC have already pulled up Katy Gallagher for getting her numbers wrong on the budget.

If only she had said 'one of' the worst.

 

[moXJO]

Labor getting ready to flood in working visas again. I don't agree with it and think they will over do it. Where the hell are we putting them?
Labor talks a big "wages protection" game. But more often then not protect big businesses and shaft everyone else.

 

[wayneL]

If only she had said 'one of' the worst.

That was pretty interesting article, I wish the media did a lot more balanced reporting like that.

 

[rederob]

The Feds own offshore resources as I previously posted,

Get your facts straight as it affects what governments actually do.
If what you said was true then the feds could sell what they own for a fair price. But they don't because they have no idea what resources are subsurface, so regulate how exploration and development occur.
As a result the feds do not own what comes out of the ground, and can only control how it is distributed.

The agreement between Dutch Shell and the then Gillard Government, to allow Shell to extract and process Australia's Federal offshore reserves, while not reserving any for Australia.
My calendar shows that was 2013 under the Gillard Government, when Gary Gray was resources minister, but don't let that get in the way of your narrative.

That's your narrative, not mine.
I am in favour of including a domestic obligation for all resources, as such mechanisms only come into play when they are critical to our economy.

Just remember that my link was to what was stated last year:

"Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia Keith Pitt said the new Heads of Agreement puts Australian families and businesses first by making sure Australia does not experience a shortfall in supply at the expense of exports.​

​

In other words in full knowledge of the situation we were in (unlike in 2013 when the idea of a renewable energy transition was a fairy tale) the then Minister stuffed up big time. So Labor blaming the Coalition for our present predicament is fair game, and trying to suggest the problem is almost 10 years old is rather funny.

 

[SirRumpole]

That was pretty interesting article, I wish the media did a lot more balanced reporting like that.

Actually the ABC has been running Fact Check for quite a while.

They have given stick to both parties along the way.

 

[basilio]

Mark Dreyfus is rolling out the Governments anti corruption watchdog timetable.
Looking for legislation by the end of 2022 and start of operation by mid 2023.
Will be very interesting to see the Coalition response as this unwinds. For example "How will they vote on the issue ?"
This was a key policy platform for Teals,Labour and The Greens

Attorney-General wants federal integrity commission up and running by mid-2023​

By political reporter Matthew Doran
Posted 22m ago22 minutes ago

Mark Dreyfus says a federal anti-corruption body should be operational by this time next year.
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article



A national anti-corruption watchdog could be operational by the middle of next year, with the new Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus setting up a task force in his department to deliver on Labor's "paramount objective".

Key points:​

• The government has proposed its integrity commission will have retrospective powers and be able to conduct public hearings
• Labor will consult with independent MPs on its design
• The government hopes it will be running by the middle of next year

Mr Dreyfus, who has been in the role for a week, said the federal government was in a position to take elements from state and territory commissions in designing its own model, addressing what he said were serious flaws in the previous government's proposal.
Legislation before parliament drafted by crossbenchers, including independent MP Helen Haines, would also serve to shape Labor's model.
"It's going to deal with serious and systemic corruption, it's going to be able to receive allegations from a whole range of sources," he told the ABC.

"It's going to be able to, at its discretion, hold public hearings."

The Attorney-General insisted Labor's proposal would also allow for retrospective investigations.
"We think that it's completely inappropriate to suggest that an anti-corruption commission, once set up, would only be able to look at matters that arose after it was set up," Mr Dreyfus said.

Government wants federal anti-corruption body operating by mid-next year

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus wants a federal corruption watchdog up and running by mid-2023, if legislation can be passed this year.

www.abc.net.au

 

[sptrawler]

@rederob Your link came up with this, on my computer.

 

[sptrawler]

Jeez you're hard work, you have such believe in yourself, you should go into politics. ?

Get your facts straight as it affects what governments actually do.
If what you said was true then the feds could sell what they own for a fair price. But they don't because they have no idea what resources are subsurface, so regulate how exploration and development occur.
As a result the feds do not own what comes out of the ground, and can only control how it is distributed.

So the Feds don't own anything that comes out of the ground, well if that was true why did they have to sign over ownership to W.A duh.

Browse Basin deal hands $2b gas royalties to WA Government

The Commonwealth officially signs over ownership of 65 per cent of the largest gas field in the Browse Basin to the WA Government, relinquishing up to $2 billion in royalties.

www.abc.net.au

From the article:
The Commonwealth has officially signed over ownership of 65 per cent of the largest gas field in the Browse Basin to the WA Government, relinquishing up to $2 billion in royalties.

Now that is funny having to sign over something you don't own. But I do love your unbending belief, in your own narrative, it's impressive.

 

[rederob]

So the Feds don't own anything that comes out of the ground, well if that was true why did they have to sign over ownership to W.A duh.

Neither WA nor the feds own what has been extracted from the ground once permitted.
I can't make it any clearer!

If they did, then once extracted either government - assuming your concept of ownership - could sell it. That does not happen.
You have confused the ability to attract royalties from what is extracted, with actual ownership.