+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 62
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked
    808
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    I can only go by what has been reported. You will note that 'emails' is plural, as is 'bodies'. This implies that there were more than one associated body that raised concerns. Concerns which the government ignored.
    There is no doubt a case to be made for increased regulation. So what's the difference between good and bad regulation? How confident are we that the Abbott government's wholesale elimination of regulations will not also have adverse consequences? People are quick to lambast "red tape" until something goes wrong, and then they demand to know why the government did not do something to prevent adverse outcomes.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JohnC For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (21-03-2014),Ellewood  (22-03-2014)

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
    There is no doubt a case to be made for increased regulation. So what's the difference between good and bad regulation? How confident are we that the Abbott government's wholesale elimination of regulations will not also have adverse consequences? People are quick to lambast "red tape" until something goes wrong, and then they demand to know why the government did not do something to prevent adverse outcomes.
    Not necessarily. Was there a problem before this scheme? Or did this scheme create a problem due to poor implementation.
    To answer your questions:
    1. Good regulation is required. Bad regulation is not. For example. State and Federal and Local governments all have duplication of environmental regulations. Environmental regulation is required (once), having two extra layers with the same aim and outcome is not required. Therefore, it is bad regulation.
    2. One would hope the government would not rush into things (unlike the recent past) and get appropriate feedback from stakeholders as to the possible negatives effects.

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked
    808
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Yes, good regulation is good, and bad regulation is bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    One would hope the government would not rush into things (unlike the recent past) and get appropriate feedback from stakeholders as to the possible negatives effects.
    And the wholesale repeal of regulations the govt is trumpeting is "not rushing into things"?

    As for the environment, if there is to be only one level of environmental impact assessment, why should it be at a State level? Does the Great Barrier Reef belong to the Qld govt or to all Australians?

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to JohnC For This Useful Post:

    Ellewood  (22-03-2014)

  6. #44
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Er no, sorry, that isn't at all how it works. Abbott said he would do all these things if he got elected - and now has backed out of them. That is a backflip if ever there was a backflip. In fact, his face should be in the dictionary under the word "backflip".

    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    I would call it a backflip if it was in government. It is government who make policy and get elected on such policy. The opposition can do whatever they like. But hey, I don't really care which word you use.

    Just like they have now 'changed their mind' and no longer want to terminate the carbon tax, despite Rudd apparently having done so prior to the last election.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (22-03-2014),Ellewood  (22-03-2014)

  8. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
    As for the environment, if there is to be only one level of environmental impact assessment, why should it be at a State level? Does the Great Barrier Reef belong to the Qld govt or to all Australians?
    In my opinion, most regulation should be at State level. The Great Barrier Reef is Queensland's. Just like the Great Ocean Road is Victoria's.

  9. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked
    808
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    In my opinion, most regulation should be at State level. The Great Barrier Reef is Queensland's. Just like the Great Ocean Road is Victoria's.
    Fortunately, you are dead wrong. The Great Barrier Reef is primarily a federal responsibility under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. Your comparison with the Great Ocean Road is puerile.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JohnC For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (22-03-2014),Ellewood  (22-03-2014),HappyBovinexx  (21-03-2014)

  11. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
    Fortunately, you are dead wrong. The Great Barrier Reef is primarily a federal responsibility under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. Your comparison with the Great Ocean Road is puerile.
    Your question was one of ownership, not responsibility. The GBRMPA is a federal body, but they need the authority of Queensland to execute its functions IAW para 8(3) of the Act 1975.

    Since you raised the Great Barrier Reef as an example. Let's list the associated legislation.

    Federal:
    - The GBR Marine Park Act 1975
    - The GBR Marine Park (Environmental Charge-Excise) Act -1993
    - The GBR Marine Park (Environmental Charge-General) Act - 1999
    - The GBR Marine Park Regulations 1983
    - The GBR Marine Park (Aquaculture) Regulations -2000

    Those are on top of other relevant federal laws:
    - The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act - 1999
    - Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act -1981
    - Protection of the Sea (Prevention from the Pollution of Ships) Act -1983
    - Sea Installations Act - 1987

    Queensland legislation:
    There are also International Conventions too.

    Do we need more or less regulation of the reef? How much duplication is in these documents? I could not be bothered at all to look. But when the government talks of deregulation, it is this sort of duplication that they are referring.

  12. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Incompetent opposition?

    A quick summary from Tim Blair:

    In 2010, just prior to that year’s election, then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard promised that there would be no carbon tax under her government. Then, in 2011, Gillard announced that there would be a carbon tax under her government.
    Later in 2011 Gillard and Kevin Rudd kissed in celebration after the carbon tax legislation was passed. Then, once he’d regained the Labor leadership in 2013, Rudd said that Labor did not have a mandate to introduce the carbon tax. Last July, the then-Prime Minister announced: “Today we’ve taken the decision to terminate the carbon tax.”
    Earlier this month, Labor senator Louise Pratt told parliament: “We are committed to scrapping the carbon tax.” But yesterday Labor voted in the senate to keep the carbon tax.
    And that’s where we are now. Labor is keeping a tax they were committed to scrapping after promising not to introduce it before it was terminated. Simple.
    They are a joke.

  13. #49
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    You do realise they formed a minority government right? You know what that means right? On a brighter note 3 million children are now benefiting from the new dental scheme that was formulated by the greens in the "incompetent" government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Incompetent opposition?

    A quick summary from Tim Blair:



    They are a joke.

  14. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    You do realise they formed a minority government right? You know what that means right?
    Yes. Yes. How is that relevant to them not continuing with the plan to 'terminate' the carbon tax? You can't use that excuse for ever.


 

Similar Threads

  1. Incompetent Cervix - Cervical Cerclage - Best DR in Sydney/Wollongong
    By MrsBtobe in forum Pregnancy & Birth General Chat
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 10-05-2014, 06:59
  2. Abdominal cerclage for Incompetent Cervix
    By AngelMiasMum in forum Pregnancy Health Issues
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 20-07-2013, 13:39

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Nice Pak Products
Australian Made and Owned. The Baby U Goat Milk Skincare range is enriched with soothing goats milk sourced from country, Victoria. Goat's milk has a pH level close to that of our own skin and contains natural sources of amino acids and vitamins.
sales & new stuffsee all
True Fairies
True Fairies is the first interactive website where children can engage and speak with a real fairy through the unique webcam fairy portal. Each session is tailored to the child, and is filled with enchantment and magic.
Visit website to find out more!
featured supporter
Baby U & The Wiggles - Toilet Training Products
Toilet training can be a testing time but Baby U is there to assist you and your toddler with the daunting task of toilet training. With a range of products that can be used at home, on holidays or out & about.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!