MisterFrog

Not raise, but bring up to levels road users were previously paying.

Road maintenance doesn't stop being required just because you've stopped burning oil.

Road users should pay to use the road (it's not even the full price of the road, and the money goes towards tax revenue, unlike our stupid toll roads)

Indeed, this would require quality builds to change people's minds. Which would cut into the developer's profits

I live in a pretty decent one myself though. I love it

This. We keep pretending like there are no solutions.

There are no solutions that won't affect the bottom line of someone rorting the system

People are allergic to apartments despite it being a great option for many, many people

Quite funnily, it also acts as a consumer protection. If word gets out that a dealer's product is bad, people will stop buying from them haha

They don't need to know, they want to know to make more profit, and daring you to unsubscribe.

We live in the Wild-West age of the internet where companies get away with anything they like

Can we all agree that energy retailers are a collosal waste of time?

They provide literally no value.

Bring back government run energy distribution and retail. What is the fucking point?

Especially something the rich would rarely use. Steal helicopters and fancy cars, that's what real g's would steal

“It will send a message to Qantas and other well-resourced employers that not only will they face potentially significant penalties for the breach of the Act, but those penalties will be provided to trade unions to resource [them] to fulfil their statutory roles as enforcers of the Act,” he said.

This guy is a good man. A good man indeed.

Some say this already happened with Whitlam, given the CIA's comments about Kerr being "their man".

We'll probably never know for sure, but I would bet there would be regime change done here if we ever decide to stop allowing our resources to be plundered by US (and other) companies

Between the two, cars grant autonomy outside public planning for individuals to still be individuals to get between families and economy between remote to remote and metro to remote even when there's no feasible public transport.

This is a planning failure. This middle used to be farmland not that long ago.

Cars really ought not be the primary mode of transport in built up areas. They ought to primarily be for moving house, emergency services, disabled people, and people in rural areas.

But so, so, so much of our cities are geared towards cars, and this is because suburbs were built further and further out, instead of densifying our neighbourhoods like we should have.

It's also just generally a problem of capitalism, and privatisation. More modern high rises are far worse quality (in Victoria at least) than ones built before the 90s (for their time). Kennet really fucked us on that one by removing government surveyors (the conflict of interest with privately contracted surveyors is so obvious, and it's lead to terrible quality)

The average Joe has been screwed into long commutes, in cars, because of bad planning.

I'm just saying, there are options. Quite a decent amount really, by international standards. And some are pretty decent, just none perfect.

I just think the notion that there are no options of political candidates who would tax the oligarchs, isn't true.

You asked what party could you vote for to tax them? I provided them. You said the preferences flow to Labor. And I said, well yeah, that's the way the system works!

I feel like you're shifting the goal posts here.

I do agree with you that things are largely cooked, though, and share your frustration that we don't just grow some balls and tax companies and individuals like we once did.

I too look forward to a future where the people treat the government as their collective will, and not a force to be resisted and mistrusted, so we can get on with improving the material lives of all of us.

Hope this message finds you at the end of a relaxing weekend, if you had the pleasure of having it off work.

The preferences flow to Labor because you (and others) preferenced them above the Liberals and other candidates at high enough rates for them to be declared the winner.

The system is working exactly as intended, and while not perfect, is probably one of the best in the world. The parties you voted for didn't gain enough votes to win, so your vote went to the next preference.

It's important to note, you preferencing parties that didn't win doesn't do nothing.

1. Your first preference receives funding from the AEC, allowing them to campaign next time and otherwise be a force on issues you care about

https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/public_funding/index.htm

This is particularly important as you only receive funding if you receive at least 4% of the vote in the electorate (which I personally think is too high a threshold and should pay out at lower numbers than that). So make sure you preference your favourite first.

2. It does signal to those who won what the electorate wants. There's a reason our parties are somewhat moderate, even the Liberals, because our voting system leads to candidates with the broadest appeal winning. The major party vote is at an all time low, and I would be surprised if this doesn't change Australian politics for the better (as long as though minor parties aren't One Nation, lol)

Now, in practice, it's not working perfectly. But really, we keep electing Labor (and historically more so the LNP) because people keep preferencing them, not because the voting system doesn't work well. It works great.

The voting system isn't at fault there, it's that we have a corporate media landscape, mostly owned by a far right foreign national (Murdoch), and lobbying like crazy.

What we can be hopeful for, though, is that we're not handicapped in our voting system.

I get you, it feels like you can make little difference, but it's not the voting system that's to blame for this.