The Australian Greens party

[Calliope]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

The Greens have a strange policy on taxation. They want to tax the bejesus out of the extractive industries until they are severely weakened or go off-shore.

And then what?:dunno:

 

[Mofra]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

You are so right. There must be heaps of savings at all levels of Government. The problem is, it is not their money, so the average bureaucrat could not care less.

As someone who has worked closely with (and in) Federal beaurocracy for a number of years, I can assure you that the private sector would fulfil many (most) of the functions of the public service with much greater efficiency.
What you suspect is the case, I know is the case.

 

[Julia]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

As someone who has worked closely with (and in) Federal beaurocracy for a number of years, I can assure you that the private sector would fulfil many (most) of the functions of the public service with much greater efficiency.
What you suspect is the case, I know is the case.

That is so depressing. And it permeates right down to pissy little local government. This is just a minor example.
My puppy got hold of a library book and managed to destroy the first page before I saw her with it. This meant I was responsible and had to replace the book. OK, fine. I was given the option of just handing the money over to the library or acquiring the book myself. The first option would have been $40.

I was able to buy it from the ABC Shop at full retail price for $10 less, i.e. 25%. When I questioned this, suggesting surely the library would have access to cheaper prices via publishers or wholesalers, the response was "well, probably. I'm not really sure where most of our books come from: I think quite often we buy them from local booksellers".

What?? Was sufficiently irritated to refer it to my local Councillor, who also was less than interested, and assured me that she felt the library were 'pretty good about containing costs where possible'!
That earned her a very sharply worded reply reminding her of Council's responsibility to spend ratepayers' money wisely.

Probably, though, I've simply wasted my time. Grr!

 

[Smurf1976]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Having worked in the public service, my opinion is simply this.

"Hands on" government workers are no more and no less efficient, overall, than their private sector counterparts. That is assuming that the bureaucracy lets the workers get on with the job. Some waste occurs in some areas, offset by efficiency in others.

The bureaucracy, on the other hand, is riddled with rules, regulations and policital instructions that preclude any chance of efficient operation. Those who desire to efficiently use the taxpayers' funds eventually get sick of banging their head against a wall.

Private contractors are another story altogether and by far the most expensive way of doing anything. There may well be exceptions, but in general they are damn good at extracting maximum $ from the taxpayer in return for the minimum possible expenditure on actually doing the work.

Consulting services - ask any public servant what really goes on and you'll find out that most consultants are nothing more than glorified typists. They produce some fancy reports but come straight back to the department that hired them the moment some real knowledge or ability is required. There are exceptions of course, but there's a lot of duds out there.

What would I do?

Greater accountability and removal of political interference with the bureaucracy. Government decides what, government departments decide how.

At the end of present contracts, bring in-house all "hands on" functions of government of an ongoing nature. The fortune being handed to contractors, and the fortune spent trying to administer the contracts and enforce them, is a very large part of what's wrong with the way our taxes are spent.

There used to be tens of thousands of "hands on" government workers actually doing work, overseen by a relatively modest bureaucracy. It wasn't perfect but the job did get done.

Then some bright spark came up with the idea of handing most of that "hands on" work to contractors, commonly known as "outsourcing". Supposedly they were going to work harder and be more efficient.

Then add the contractor's administration and general running costs.

Then add in profit.

Then make some allowance for the contractor doing the work as cheaply as they can get away with, meaning it doesn't last as long as it should.

Then realise that the bureaucracy has been inflated with all sorts of project managers, accountants, lawyers, contract administrators and the like in an attempt at holding the contractors to account.

Then realise that the contractor now needs a similar army of their own bureaucrats in order to out maneuver the government's army of bureaucrats.

Now you know where your money is going. Into the pockets of a white collar army in the public service and another white collar army on the contractors' side, each trying to outwit the other. With any luck, a few crumbs fall down to those who actually provide service to the public.

I'm very much in favour of private enterprise when it operates under normal circumstances. But private profit funded by my taxes, at far greater cost to me than if government employed people directly, is an entirely different matter. There's no justification for it other than to increase the profits of a select few. Those who get such contracts presumably do quite nicely (they ought to be - they're being paid plenty) at the expense of every other business and individual who ends up paying for it.

All that said, there is a role for contractors. But not where they end up as defacto government employees doing ongoing work. Just too wasteful...

 

[drsmith]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

The Greens have a strange policy on taxation. They want to tax the bejesus out of the extractive industries until they are severely weakened or go off-shore.

And then what?:dunno:

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ba'ku

...or so they dream.

 

[Logique]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Having worked in the public service, my opinion is simply this.
........
The bureaucracy, on the other hand, is riddled with rules, regulations and policital instructions that preclude any chance of efficient operation. Those who desire to efficiently use the taxpayers' funds eventually get sick of banging their head against a wall.

Private contractors are another story altogether and by far the most expensive way of doing anything. There may well be exceptions, but in general they are damn good at extracting maximum $ from the taxpayer in return for the minimum possible expenditure on actually doing the work.

Consulting services - ask any public servant what really goes on and you'll find out that most consultants are nothing more than glorified typists. They produce some fancy reports but come straight back to the department that hired them the moment some real knowledge or ability is required. There are exceptions of course, but there's a lot of duds out there.

What would I do?
..............
Then realise that the bureaucracy has been inflated with all sorts of project managers, accountants, lawyers, contract administrators and the like in an attempt at holding the contractors to account.
.........
I'm very much in favour of private enterprise when it operates under normal circumstances. But private profit funded by my taxes, at far greater cost to me than if government employed people directly, is an entirely different matter. There's no justification for it other than to increase the profits of a select few. Those who get such contracts presumably do quite nicely (they ought to be - they're being paid plenty) at the expense of every other business and individual who ends up paying for it.

All that said, there is a role for contractors. But not where they end up as defacto government employees doing ongoing work. Just too wasteful...

Here here Smurf! It's a wasteful racket.

 

[Mofra]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

"Hands on" government workers are no more and no less efficient, overall, than their private sector counterparts. That is assuming that the bureaucracy lets the workers get on with the job. Some waste occurs in some areas, offset by efficiency in others.

The bureaucracy, on the other hand, is riddled with rules, regulations and policital instructions that preclude any chance of efficient operation. Those who desire to efficiently use the taxpayers' funds eventually get sick of banging their head against a wall.

Summed up very well here. There are some brilliant people creating some very good work that goes nowhere because the higher-ups want to play a political game to further their career.

 

[Knobby22]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

I can say that the worst and most inefficient performers in my experience are in private run service monopolies looking after public infrastructure.

They seem to take the worst of public and private institutions and put them together.

 

[noco]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

If we do have to go back to the polls in the near future, I live in hope the Greens will be exposed to the media as explained below by Cory Benardi.

The Greens Party are a threat to our way of life in the future and should be eliminated.

« Tony Abbott Has Put Australia on the Right Path | Main

25 August 2010
Green’s Global Government Ambitions
The nature of the Greens’ totalitarian agenda can be seen through a careful examination of their policies and party platform.

Their support for global governance, manifested in the United Nations, includes a "stronger UN capable of dealing with threats to international peace and security."

Given the Greens oppose every type of conflict except the 'just wars' mounted by radical eco-terrorists like the Sea Shepherd organisation, one must ask what benefit a stronger United Nations would be to their objectives? Unless the UN was entrusted to enforce some of their more interventionist treaties and agreements.

Actually, that's exactly what the Green lobby wanted through the Copenhagen treaty. An unelected, unaccountable body was to be funded through the wealthy Western nations to act as the global policeman, judge and jury determining who could do what, where and when.

Such a process would have almost assuredly resulted in systemic corruption that would have dwarfed the frauds and falsehoods of the UN’s own climate change committee and limited the ability of nations to choose their own path to the benefit of their citizens.

Now the United Nations have many other treaties; including one that trumps parental responsibility with government bureaucrats under the guise of 'children's rights'.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty is part of an international plan to give children a long list of rights. It was implemented in 1989 and most nations, including Australia, are signatories to it.

Some of the clauses in this treaty give rise to some concern. This includes the rights that give ‘the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.’

Further, children would be able to seek a ‘governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.’

Teaching children Christianity in schools would be banned, as would raising your children in any particular faith. In fact, parents would limited to giving 'advice' to children about religion under this treaty.

According to the United Nations good parenting guide, children would have a right to abortions without parental consent and would have a legally enforceable right to leisure. Exactly what constitutes leisure is left open to interpretation but I feel confident that campaigning for Green causes would meet with UN approval!

Of course, the UN doesn't stop there. Under their treaty it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defence than it does on children's welfare. Who cares that strong nations protect children from tyranny and abuse, or that orderly societies provide a safer environment for children than lawless ones? Such trifling matters should never interfere with the United Nations’ ability to dictate how sovereign nations are allowed to spend their taxpayers’ money.

At present, although there are reporting obligations by nations that signed the treaty, there are no penalties for failure to comply and nations can opt out of the treaty with little notice. So it is basically another UN motherhood statement that achieves nothing except for providing the UN with the appearance of achievement.

However, under the Greens’ world view, that could change. They want to empower the UN to have an enforcement role for all existing and future treaties and conventions, which the Greens will unilaterally endorse. Don’t take my word for it, read their policy platform.

This includes the Rights of the Child treaty where an enforced UN treaty could actually direct how parents can raise their children.

It's alarming enough that a party with a Marxist heart covered by an environmental skin can achieve electoral success and balance of power status without effective scrutiny of their policy positions.

However it is downright scary that they are prepared to effectively outsource aspects of Australian sovereignty to an external organisation and further want to empower that organisation to be the global policeman – directing, amongst other things, how we can raise our children.

Permalink

 

[drsmith]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

The Greens want a viable mining and mineral exploration sector that meets stringent environmental protection standards, or so the say.

They want to cease uranium mining immediately, limit coal to the winding down of existing mines and tax resource profits at 66.5%. I would like to see their modelling of the economic viability of that.

 

[Julia]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

The Greens want a viable mining and mineral exploration sector that meets stringent environmental protection standards, or so the say.

They want to cease uranium mining immediately, limit coal to the winding down of existing mines and tax resource profits at 66.5%. I would like to see their modelling of the economic viability of that.

So when they get control of the Senate next year, what do you think will happen? The above is pretty much unthinkable, so is it likely the government and the opposition will vote together on such issues, rendering the Greens irrelevant?

 

[drsmith]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

The Greens have made it clear that the want carbon taxed as suggested by Gaurnet, but some enlightenment on the specifics of the following part of their tax policy would also be of use;

other ecological taxes and charges at a level sufficient enough that their prices reflect the full environmental cost of their production, use or disposal.

Perhaps someone who supports or voted for the Greens could provide some detail.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Jeez I hope they don't halt Uranium mining. They could not be that thick.

Its the future as regards clean energy.

gg

 

[drsmith]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

They are.

http://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy/nuclear

The Australian Greens will:

12.end the exploration for, and the mining and export of, uranium.

 

[IFocus]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

The Greens want a viable mining and mineral exploration sector that meets stringent environmental protection standards, or so the say.

They want to cease uranium mining immediately, limit coal to the winding down of existing mines and tax resource profits at 66.5%. I would like to see their modelling of the economic viability of that.

Interesting to see how they handle the move from purity to political realism with the increase in power. Also how well they work as a party will be much more difficult with a larger group.

 

[drsmith]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Interesting to see how they handle the move from purity to political realism with the increase in power. Also how well they work as a party will be much more difficult with a larger group.

Interesting segment on Insiders (ABC) today including how they currently compare vote wise to the Democrats at their peak.

 

[noco]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

They are.

http://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy/nuclear

There are thousands of voters who voted for the Greens who would no have idea what these people stand for apart from the elimination of uranium and coal mining.

They voted in this manner purely because they were brainwashed into thinking the two major parties were on the nose. So it was purely a protest vote. Their percentage of votes is equivalent to the Democrats back in the 80's and 90's.

I have two friends who voted for the Greens. When I mentioned to them some of the Greens polocies and their beliefs, they were dumbfounded.

Why in the hell the Greens were not exposed before and during the election campaign I will never know.

The Greens have weakened the Labor Party base so much that even Paul Kelly suggested on today's AM Agenda (Sky News), we could see a future coalition known as the Green Labor Party.

The Greens will stuff this great country of ours if they ever get into power.

 

[noco]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Jeez I hope they don't halt Uranium mining. They could not be that thick.

Its the future as regards clean energy.

gg

Yes GG, there are now over 500 nuclear power plants in operation throughout the world. France alone has 70+.

 

[Smurf1976]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

The Greens have weakened the Labor Party base so much that even Paul Kelly suggested on today's AM Agenda (Sky News), we could see a future coalition known as the Green Labor Party.

The Greens will stuff this great country of ours if they ever get into power.

Witness the situation in Tasmania, with a Labor-Green government as such (as distinct from a Labor government relying on Green support).

One consequence is that Green ministers in the government are having to implement the policies of the government, not the Greens party, and that seems to be causing a rift between them and those Greens not holding ministerial portfolios.

That said, so far it seems to be working reasonably well. Sure beats having the "doom and gloom" Liberals running the place that's for sure. All they ever do is sell things and run up debt. No thanks...

Interestingly, in terms of media coverage etc, we have the rather strange situation of having a Labor-Green government with the real opposition being Green backbenchers. Interesting to say the least.

As for them destroying the state and/or country, well the biggest political surprise I've ever had is the Greens seemingly acknowledging that building a new pulp mill in Tas might just be a good idea, provided it's in the right place etc (they remain opposed to the one proposed by Gunns). It's a pity we had to see almost all manufacturing industry in the state wiped out over the past 30 years amidst the wars over dams (power), forests and pollution before we came to some commonsense. But then if you are actually part of the government, retaining a population and employmnet base in the state suddenly becomes important.

What would happen nationally I'm not sure, but I'd have to say that it's working better than expected in Tas so far. So far...

 

[Smurf1976]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Yes GG, there are now over 500 nuclear power plants in operation throughout the world. France alone has 70+.

Much of the fuel for those is coming from weapons dismantling which ends in a few years. Add to that loss of supply the reality that more nuclear reactors are under construction at the moment.

Bottom line - the world needs more uranium mines, not less.

What happens if mine output doesn't increase? In practice, a drop in nuclear output (globally) once weapons supplies run out, a small increase in coal use (most coal plants run flat out anyway, but there are exceptions), an increase in natural gas use in some countries, and an increase in fuel oil use (especially in Japan). In short, more CO2 gets emitted.