Posts filed under 'General News'
One of the many bizarre things to come out of the G8-and-then-some talkfest is this odd suggestion from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev…the hoary old chestnut of the single world currency has been floated again.
The Russian leader proudly displayed the coin, which bears the English words “United Future World Currency”, to journalists after the summit wrapped up in the quake-hit Italian town of L’Aquila.
Medvedev said that although the coin, which resembled a euro and featured the image of five leaves, was just a gift given to leaders it showed that people were beginning to think seriously about a new global currency.
“In all likelihood something similar could appear and it could be held in your hand and used as a means of payment,” he told reporters. “This is the international currency.”
Yes Mr. Medvedev, we all want to share in Zimbabwe’s inflation rate. Yes Mr. Medvedev, we want to start World War Three with the negotiations over how many “global-euro-world-dollar-cent-yen-paso-Medvedevs” our existing currencies should be worth. Yes Mr. Medvedev, I believe so strongly, utterly and thoroughly convincingly that this couldn’t possibly have anything to with the fact that an Aussie dollar can buy 25 of your Rubles whatsoever…you would never suggest anything just to get rid of that awful figure.
I have emailed the article to Maritz in the hopes that she has something to say on the matter in her column tomorrow. Although, I’m not sure if she will see the email as I think she has already left for her holiday. I hope she does though, because she isn’t a fan of Dmitry Medvedev.
Thanks to Heather Kydd for bringing this story to my attention.
Samuel
July 12th, 2009 at 03:01pm
And he has skilled pilots to thank for his survival:
Skillful piloting may have prevented a disaster for President Obama and his campaign last summer, a former federal safety official said Friday.
A report released by the National Transportation Safety Board indicates an inflated slide may have pressed against critical control cables, forcing the emergency landing of Obama’s campaign plane on July 7, 2008.
The slide inflated inside the tail cone of the campaign’s McDonnell Douglas MD-81 shortly after takeoff from Chicago’s Midway International Airport, the report said.
Investigators found evidence that the slide and a broken walkway railing inside the tail cone may have pressed against elevator cables that run the length of the plane. The cables are used to control whether the plane points up or down.
The plane’s flight crew struggled to level the aircraft’s nose, which continued to point upward after takeoff, but regained control by manipulating the control column and adjusting the trim on the plane’s tail, the report said. However, the flight crew noted the pitch control pressure required to level the airplane was higher than normal, the report said.
Former NTSB member John Goglia said the problem, had it continued, had the potential to cause a stall “at a critical point in flight.”
“It did have the potential of causing a catastrophic event,” Goglia said.
[..]
At the time of the incident, the pilot told passengers they were never in danger, and the Federal Aviation Administration said no emergency had been declared.
However, audiotapes released about a month later showed that after the pilot discovered he no longer had full control of the plane, he told an air traffic controller: “At this time we would like to declare an emergency, and also have CFR (crash equipment) standing by in St. Louis.”
Asked which runway he wanted to use, the pilot replied, “Well, which one is the longest?”
When you consider how long the average lifespan of a commercial aeroplane is compared to a consumer motor vehicle, and the fact that aeroplanes have a considerably larger chance of disaster should something go wrong (based on speed and height of travel, plus the higher number of people on board), it is absolutely amazing the amount of skill from pilots, engineers, air traffic controllers etc which goes in to generally keeping us all safe, and averting disaster when things do go wrong.
It’s just unfortunate that it takes somebody of a high profile to be involved in a close call for us to recognise the skill involved, and in this particular case, the considerable ability to stay calm under pressure, as the joking of the pilots proves.
Samuel
July 11th, 2009 at 04:43pm
Kevin Rudd has signed on the dotted line on behalf of Australia, despite the fact that Australia is not a part of the G8.
AUSTRALIA has signed off on a global deal to restrain global warming to two degrees which could mean Australia must do more to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
Errr, no. Greenhouse gas emission continue to skyrocket, but temperatures haven’t risen for about a decade, in fact they seem to be going down.
Anyway, the science of it (which Kevin Rudd and his “G8 and then a few” buddies clearly don’t understand) to one side, if they’re serious about this, it’s a serious worry.
Australian climate expert Will Steffen says limiting warming to two degrees means a global atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases of not more than 450 parts per million.
And for the world to reach that, Australia must cut emissions by 25 per cent by 2020, and by 80 per cent by 2050, he says.
[..]
Australia has promised to cut emissions by 5 to 25 per cent by 2020, and by 60 per cent by 2050.
The existing (albeit thankfully unpassed by parliament) targets are damaging enough. If they go ahead with the greater cuts, we might as well all pack up and go to a country with a sane government, and take our money with us. In fact, it looks like that’s what Kevin Rudd wants us to do:
Mr Rudd said international progress on climate change at talks in Italy represented “modest” but significant steps.
Meanwhile Mr. Rudd is using the hot air of non-binding agreements to try and ram through his Emission Trading Scheme.
The G8 had provided strong support to emissions trading schemes as a good way to reduce emissions, Mr Rudd said, adding the federal opposition should take note of this and pass the government’s scheme.
The forum aimed at making progress ahead of key UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December, which is due to ink a new climate pact.
But a stray microphone has caught Mr. Rudd out. It turns out that he doesn’t believe Copenhagen will be any more than a bunch of people ranting at each other:
“Right now I don’t think we are on track to get an agreement at Copenhagen,” Mr Rudd told [Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen]. “There are too many problems.”
It looks like I won’t need to lose any sleep over the economic consequences of the “G8 and then some” communiqué after all.
Samuel
July 11th, 2009 at 11:17am
And no surprises lay in the fact that it comes from within the US Government.
A proposed ban, on both the sale to, and smoking of, tobacco for military personnel. A move which could easily see a third, possibly more, of the military quit.
Pentagon health experts are urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ban the use of tobacco by troops and end its sale on military property, a change that could dramatically alter a culture intertwined with smoking.
Jack Smith, head of the Pentagon’s office of clinical and program policy, says he will recommend that Gates adopt proposals by a federal study that cites rising tobacco use and higher costs for the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs as reasons for the ban.
The study by the Institute of Medicine, requested by the VA and Pentagon, calls for a phased-in ban over a period of years, perhaps up to 20. “We’ll certainly be taking that recommendation forward,” Smith says.
And worryingly it’s not just a lone voice supporting this.
Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said the department supports a smoke-free military “and believes it is achievable.” She declined to elaborate on any possible ban.
Unless such a ban were to be extended to all US citizens, I really don’t see how it is legally workable. Tobacco, as a legal product, is a choice. Military personnel aren’t prohibited from drinking, so why should they be prohibited from smoking?
And how would the US military cope if a third of its staff were to quit?
One in three servicemembers use tobacco, the report says, compared with one in five adult Americans. The heaviest smokers are soldiers and Marines, who have done most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the study says. About 37% of soldiers use tobacco and 36% of Marines. Combat veterans are 50% more likely to use tobacco than troops who haven’t seen combat.
It’s simple…it wouldn’t.
I’m not denying that there are health risks and associated health costs, related to smoking. But banning smoking won’t stop the smoking, it will just prompt the addicted to quit so that they can continue to smoke…and amongst the public, especially those sympathetic to the military, it will be seen as an assault on the military by the government…an incredibly unpatriotic thing to do, and not something any sane president would do while sitting on a “-7” approval rating.
Expect this report to be buried, and for the government’s propaganda machine to pump out a distraction quick smart. Aren’t they lucky that it’s Government Motors’ first day out of bankruptcy? And Obama is visiting the Pope? A perfect day to bury such a report.
Samuel
July 11th, 2009 at 12:29am
…but it took me a few days to get around to checking.
L’Aquila, home of this year’s G8 summit, is the same L’Aquila which had a very deadly earthquake in April.
The leaders will meet in L’Aquila, Italy where a major earthquake occurred in April, killing nearly 300 people. There is an evacuation plan in place because the area is still experiencing tremors.
It intrigues me that Australia is not considered economically powerful enough to be a member of the G8, and yet Kevin Rudd gets to attend and sign plans which are potentially quite damaging to economies. Perhaps his secret plan to get Australia in to the G8 is to bankrupt the existing members.
Samuel
July 10th, 2009 at 08:24pm
This is a joke, right? Please tell me it’s a joke.
Federal authorities want to ban people from climbing one of Australia’s great natural wonders – Uluru.
An estimated 100,000 people make the steep ascent each year.
The Director of National Parks wants to close the climb for “visitor safety, cultural and environmental” reasons.
A 10-year draft management plan for the park, issued on Wednesday, says authorities will work towards closing the track.
[..]
Uluru, which is located in Australia’s “Red Centre” and used to be known as Ayers Rock, attracts about 300,000 tourists a year. Most are from overseas.
Visitors are free to ascend the path up Uluru most of the time. But signs urge people not to do so out of respect for indigenous culture.
We shouldn’t climb it because some people who were born near it say so, and because a few people have died over the years? That’s like saying “I was born in Canberra and people have died on the roads, so you shouldn’t drive on Canberra’s roads”…give me a break.
Environment Minister Peter Garrett has to sign off on the plan. A spokesman would not be drawn on whether Mr Garrett supported closing the track.
The spokesman said “there will obviously be a range of views” about the Uluru climb, and urged people to take part in the public comment period on the plan, which closes on September 4.
To their credit, the opposition are opposed to closing the great rock.
I may have to enquire about how one gets involved in this public consultation, and report back. A quick google search didn’t turn up anything useful, nor did a quick check over Peter Garrett’s website (I’m not brave enough to browse it for long).
Samuel
July 9th, 2009 at 04:28pm
It already has a bank, it’s called the Reserve Bank, and it’s the only bank the federal government should have. Don’t forget, it was the federal government which got us in to this situation of having four major players swallowing massive swathes of market share…remember the “bank deposit guarantee”? The federal government’s bizarre and misguided attempt to solve the global financial crisis, in which they decided to guarantee deposits in to banks, effectively prompting people to pull out of non-bank investments en mass, causing further problems on the stock market.
Thankfully the government and the opposition agree that a new government retail bank is not a good idea, despite the bleating of six economists.
Australia’s big four banks were in the top eight banks in the world, which provided confidence in the nation’s financial system and ability to recover from the global recession, [Home Affairs Minister Brendan] O’Connor said.
“So I don’t think there’s any particular need to look at the systemic review of our financial system, it’s very sound.”
The federal opposition does not support the notion of a “people’s bank” to rival Australia’s big banks but would support an inquiry into Australia’s financial system, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull says.
I’m pleased that we have unity on this issue. The less government interference we have in the retail banking system, the better. Eventually, once enough people are sick of the “big four” exploiting their position, we will see a natural shift toward other financial institutions. How long, or short, that period of time is, depends on how badly the “big four” exploit their position.
Samuel
July 9th, 2009 at 02:18pm
The police are not handing out fines in New South Wales for a week, starting last night, after pay negotiations stalled yet again.
Police will stop issuing on-the-spot fines for traffic, parking and boating offences for a week, after their pay negotiations with the NSW Government fell through.
The Government had until four [yesterday] afternoon to come through with a better pay offer, which didn’t include cuts to shift allowances or workers comp payouts.
Peter Remfrey from the Police Association has told 2GB’s Jason Morrison they have been left with no choice.
“We’ll be announcing a week of what we’re calling a ‘fine-free week’,” he said.
“Our members will be requested exercise their discretion and not issue on-the-spot fines for traffic and other offences such as the criminal infringement notices, public parking notices, rail infringements and boating infringement notices as well.”
Instead, offenders will be issued with warnings for minor offences or court attendance notices for serious matters.
The fine-free week begins at 6pm on Wednesday and will run until 6pm on Tuesday, July 15.
“At no time will the community be at risk,” Association president Bob Pritchard told reporters.
[..]
Mr Pritchard said the association had provided the government with a detailed plan on how it could save almost $200 million a year while improving policing.
So, an increase in the speed of traffic for a week? It’s very likely, in my view, that people will be willing to speed a bit more than usual this week on the assumption that the police will turn a blind eye.
Incidentally, in the above linked article, you can listen to 2GB’s Jason Morrison’s full interview with Bob Pritchard. It’s an interesting interview.
Samuel
July 9th, 2009 at 10:18am
It’s actually a voluntary ban on the sale of bottled water, but lets not net that get in the way of a good dramatic headline.
The central New South Wales community of Bundanoon has voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on bottled water.
More than 350 people turned out at a public meeting at the town hall tonight to vote on the motion.
Only one local resident voted against the proposal, along with a representative from the bottled water industry.
Wait! 350 people? What do News Limited have to say about the attendance?
Local businessman and Bundy on Tap organiser Huw Kingston said almost 400 people turned up to the Bundanoon Memorial Hall
Uh huh, and this counts as “overwhelming support”? Must be a small town then:
Population: 2,035 (2006 census)
Less than a quarter of the town turns up to a meeting, and this is overwhelming support?
Anyway, I digress, continuing from the News Limited article:
The voluntary ban has been triggered by concerns about the carbon footprint associated with bottling and transporting the water.
Free water fountains will be installed in the NSW village, southwest of Sydney, to replace the bottled H2O.
“Carbon footprint”? *sigh*
In a double blow for the bottled water industry, NSW Premier Nathan Rees has signalled an end to idle chit-chat around the water cooler for NSW public servants.
Mr Rees today announced an immediate ban on all departments and agencies buying bottled water, including supplies for water coolers.
It was the first step in a government campaign to significantly reduce the consumption of bottled water in the community, Mr Rees said.
Australians spent about $500 million on bottled water in 2008, a 10 per cent increase on 2007.
“These plastic bottles are everywhere,” Mr Rees said.
I’m no fan of bottled water, in fact I rarely ever buy it, but I do like the fact that, if I need water in a place where I don’t have immediate access to safe drinking water from a tap, I can buy a bottle of safe, clean water. That less than a quarter of Bundanoon, or New South Wales disaster-in-chief Nathan Rees wants to ban me from buying water in a bottle, and instead insist that I have my own bottle which I can fill from a dubious communal water source, astounds me.
But if I continue reading the News Limited article, I’m not surprised by the chosen obligatory “expert”:
Environmental group Do Something! welcomed the government and Bundanoon bans, saying they could be the catalyst for change in the community.
“It’s all about common sense,” Do Something! director Jon Dee said.
“When you reduce the usage of bottled water you’re not just saving the environment, you’re also saving your wallet at the same time.
[..]
Mr Dee said it made no sense for people to pay twice as much for a litre of bottled water than for a litre of petrol.
Jon, it’s called choice. People choose to buy it despite knowing that there are other, cheaper, sources of water. It’s also called convenience. But, then again Jon, you are the idiot who was on Open House on Sunday night claiming that the planet is warming because people are wasting food.
“The bottled water industry has managed to convince people that bottled water is somehow pure or better for you than water you drink out of the tap,” he [Jon Dee] said.
See my point above Jon. In an age when we’re taught not to share the things we eat and drink from, for fear of catching nasty bugs etc, you expect me to trust a communal water source in the middle of town? One that’s been left outside for long enough for the drunk people to amuse themselves by targeting it with their various bodily functions? One you want me to share with a person who has a cold or worse?
It’s like the old bubblers all over again…and Jon, don’t try to tell me that people won’t try to drink directly from these water dispensaries, because we both know that they will.
And just in case you do happen to believe in the carbon footprint nonsense, Geoff Parker, director of the Australasian Bottled Water Institute has some facts and figures to (pun intended) pour cold water on the “bottled water is evil” line.
The environmental footprint of one bottle of water of locally produced water would be much smaller than a tin of canned tomatoes imported from overseas, some imported cheese, or French champagne, I think we need to keep it in perspective.
That we do Geoff, that we do.
Samuel
July 9th, 2009 at 07:53am
I note from Mark Parton’s blog that the Chief Turnip of the ACT, Jon Stanhope, nearly let out the F word yesterday, but stopped himself just before it came out.
Word is that the Chief Minister was addressing some business leaders yesterday. He was talking about potential budget blow outs in the upgrade of Civic….and he nearly said, “How the F….can it possibly cost that much”
He stopped himself on the F and went with ‘How in the world’ instead.
People seem to like politicians who comes across as honest and “one of the people”, and not “putting on a show”. I can’t think of a better way for a politician to gain popularity than to use the F word, in context, in a public setting, and enjoy the public rallying behind him or her when the media starts criticising them for it.
Sure, you’d get those who would be critical, but on the whole, I think the number of people who would be supportive would greatly outnumber the disapprovers.
Whilst it does have to be remembered that there is a time and place for everything, and that a business meeting is probably not the place for a political leader to shout expletives, it’s probably a better place for them to do it than some other places (the chamber, for one, would be a bad place). There isn’t really a “right place” in public for a politician to use expletives, but for an intended or unintended political stunt, yesterday’s meeting with business leaders would have been one of the better places.
I suppose I should be thankful that he didn’t use the F word though, because if he did, I might have been forced to defend him…and defending Jon Stanhope is one of the least comfortable things I could ever be forced to do.
Samuel
July 9th, 2009 at 06:54am
It’s the ninth of July, so I get to say happy Constitution Day, despite the fact that it’s not a public holiday in Australia.
Constitution Day marks the day in 1900 that Queen Victoria signed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 in to law in Britain.
I’ve argued for quite some time now that we need a holiday in winter to balance out the glut of holidays in Summer and surrounds, and that we shouldn’t have a holiday in November for the Melbourne Cup. Well there we go, Constitution Day, a good day for a nice patriotic holiday.
Samuel
July 9th, 2009 at 12:19am
I’ve had two days to digest this one now, and I still don’t get it. Senator Mark Arbib, I submit to your superior intellect and ask you to kindly explain the difference to me.
There have been, like there’s a story today on the front page of the “Sunday Telegraph” and there’s been a number of them and almost all of these stories that we’ve gone away and checked out have been either inaccurate or not correct.
Yes, the stories are either inaccurate or not correct.
Meanwhile Mark also put on his psychologist hat during the interview, and came up with this pearler:
We’re going to create on the ground and the productivity gains that the country’s going to get.
I mean this is, to sort of question our intentions, [is] just – crazy
Mark, I have a job for you. There’s this bloke over in the US who talks to the media every day…sends them to sleep, uses the word “um” as every third word, and rarely has the faintest clue what’s going on. His name is Robert Gibbs, and he is the White House Press Secretary. I’d like you to take over his job. You make just as much sense, and with an attitude of “questioning our intentions is crazy”, you’d fit right in to the Obama White House.
Samuel
July 7th, 2009 at 08:37pm
I feel vindicated. It’s so nice to know that a police force somewhere, even if it is on the other side of the country, agrees with me that you can’t just declare all unauthorised drivers to be incredibly dangerous, and expect your citizens to swallow your hype.
I wrote a lengthy editorial about this subject last year, in which I spelt out the differences between the risk profiles of the various types of unauthorised drivers, after the Australian Federal Police (who police the Australian Capital Territory) went on a bizarre crusade…I couldn’t stand by and let them lump all unauthorised drivers in to the same category of “extremely dangerous”.
From the article in the first link:
A record number of cars have been impounded since new laws came into effect yesterday.
Under the laws, police have the authority to impound any car for 28 days if the driver does not have a valid licence.
So far, about 70 cars have been confiscated, including several company cars.
So, that’s the “crackdown” in a nutshell, but how does this prove that the Western Australian Police force agrees with my categories…?
Inspector Royal says not all unlicensed drivers face having their car confiscated.
“Unlicensed driver’s licence impounding will not affect people whose licence has expired,” he said.
“If you’ve never held a driver’s licence you won’t get your car impounded. If you’re driving contrary to driver’s licence conditions you won’t get your car impounded. If you are under fine suspension you won’t get you car impounded.
(emphasis mine)
Proof that my point last year about administrative suspensions not making drivers inherently dangerous was not just a 3am rant. The WA Police have agreed with my point, and I’m pleased to see it.
I’m not condoning driving when one is not legally allowed to do so, but it’s great to see that at least one Police force has seen the light, and noticed that focussing the harsher penalties on the people who have proven themselves to be dangerous is a smart use of Police resources, and a better way to manage the roads.
Samuel
July 7th, 2009 at 01:29pm
Because if, for some strange reason, they actually succeed in building it, you can be assured that it will be plagued with problems. This time around, it’s lighting which makes train drivers sick.
Chatswood Epping Rail link a blinking farce
By Rhys Haynes
The Daily Telegraph
THE problems facing the $2.3 billion Epping to Chatswood Rail Link – a train line $1 billion over budget that goes halfway to it original destination – continue to mount.
Yesterday I travelled along the line, staring out the window like any of the 10,000 passengers would do each day.
I tried to count the individual lights as we went along, and at one point I swayed sideways because I felt so giddy.
I was able to look away and take a few seconds to readjust my eyes because I was dizzy.
I can’t even imagine what it is like for a driver trying to concentrate on his or her job.
It would be like trying to drive a car while having your front seat passenger flicking a torch on and off in your face – for 8½ hours.
RailCorp played down the claims of ill drivers when approached by The Daily Telegraph yesterday.
But in the same breath one of the organisation’s most senior executives, Andy Byford, said he had immediately implemented a number of considerable shift restrictions and driver rules because he was taking “no risks”.
[..]
The link won’t be officially in place until October when the line is integrated into the rest of the network’s timetable.
That means the Rees Government has less than 100 days to sort out the problems before it gets truly embarrassing.
Right now these issues are buried deep underground in a small pocket of Sydney’s northwest.
Steep tracks, loud trains, problematic concrete sleepers and cracks in the ceiling are just the start of it.
[..]
The latest problem on the Epping to Chatswood line involving a strobe-lighting effect seems staggeringly obvious to anyone who has travelled in the tunnel.
Why did it take a driver in hospital to force RailCorp to investigate the problem?
That would be a good question Rhys, if it weren’t the New South Wales government in charge. Have you ever known the Carr/Iemma/Rees et al government to build a tunnel or other bit of transport infrastructure, be it for cars, trains, aeroplanes or ferries, and get it right?
Didn’t think so.
Samuel
July 7th, 2009 at 11:51am
I’m sick of the government’s war on cigarettes, alcohol and anything else which they deem to be bad for you. The reason I’m sick of their war on said items is that they don’t have the guts to outlaw the darn things…instead they take the “softly softly” wrap-you-up-in-expensive-cotton-wool approach of increasing the taxes on the items they don’t like, under the false guise of the extra revenue being spent on the health system.
This time around its cigarettes which are in the (no pun intended) firing line.
The price of a pack of cigarettes could soon hit 20 dollars for a pack of 30 as the federal government considers tax hikes in bid to force up to one million Australians to kick the habit.
[..]
The landmark report, now being examined by Health Minister Nicola Roxon, urges the government to slash smoking rates over the next decade to nine per cent, reducing the number of people aged 14 and over who smoke daily from three million to two million.
Under the changes, some of which were canvassed in a discussion paper released late last year, cigarette packets would be generic and plain, with larger graphic health warnings taking up about 90 per cent of the front and 100 per cent of the back.
The plan has been strongly backed by anti-smoking organisations such as the Public Health Association, the Cancer Council and the National Heart Foundation, but has alarmed cigarette companies, which claim it could be unlawful.
I think the best summary of this nonsense was on ABC TV’s “Insiders” programme on Sunday morning which, sadly, the ABC can’t be bothered transcribing. The video is here for the rest of the week.
Basically, George Megalogenis from The Australian went on about how the extra revenue will be kept separate from the rest of the budget, and the government expect the price hikes to not produce extra revenue in the long term because of the larger number of people who will choose to quit smoking if the price is increased in this way, to which Andrew Bolt from the Herald Sun responded “You’re so trusting”.
Spot on Andrew. An increase in the cost of smoking like this may very well force a few more people to decide that smoking is no longer financially viable for them, but it’s just as likely that others will just choose to cut back on the amount they spend on other items. The number of times we have seen governments take money and promise to do certain things with said money (such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge toll), and instead throw said money in to general revenue…if you believe that an increase in tax revenue from cigarettes will go directly in to the health system, then you also believe that pigs will fly in to Parliament House and sing the praises of Kevin Rudd during question time (and no, that does not include jetsetting backbench MPs posing Dorothy Dixer questions).
To put this as simply as I can, if the government has the guts to outlaw cigarettes, then I will support them, because that might actually have the positive health effects that they would like us to believe a tax increase will have. I will not, however, support stupid, money-hungry tax increases dressed up as health benefits.
And I don’t even smoke! I just don’t think it’s fair for people who legally choose to smoke, to be forced to pay extra taxes for the privilege, when those taxes are taken under false pretences. Nor do I think it is fair for smokers to be, on the assumption that smoking taxes actually do go towards health initiatives, forced to pay the nation’s health bill when there are plenty of other reasons for people to need to health care.
But of course we know that the government won’t outlaw cigarettes, because they know that a large percentage of the nation’s voters happen to enjoy smoking, and would not take kindly to their government declaring them to be criminals. It’s surprising that those same voters are more willing to accept an artificial increase in the price of their indulgence.
This plan has nothing to do with health, and everything to do with politics, and the people who wrote the report for Nicola Roxon know it.
Samuel
July 7th, 2009 at 09:37am
Next Posts
Previous Posts