The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

... & I assume that if we sell the stuff to all comers, we have some responsibility to dispose of the waste, too?

regardless of your cynacism I beleve the debate needs to happen. My preference would be that methods are found to reduce energy consumption rather than open a whole new field. I have long been a proponant of every home being as energy efficiant as possible.
Australian Homes are notoriusly inneficiant esp when compared to countries in cold climates.

Energy production from biomass (burning wood produced in plantaions and ethanol production) could be co2 neutral.

I really am not sure this government has explored all the other avenues properly.

This debate may be the opportunity to do this

I am sure that other avenues have not been fully explored, dadpad.

I am also very dubious about the opportunity to properly explore them as part of this "debate".

I doubt that it is a real debate......UNLESS Howard et al get the notion, by floating this balloon, that it could lose them the next election.

If not, I suspect it is a done deal...

But, other people will hopefully treat it as real, and the issues will get a good airing, so to that extent I agree with dadpad.

... & why on earth should I feel any confidence at all that there will be any "proper" enquiry or public consultation on this issue? Since when did the Libs listen to public opinion about important issues (when it wasn't in their - or the US's- interests?) Look at the record: Iraq, IR, the imposition of the GST, Wheat-gate, welfare changes, etc, etc, etc ... I could go on & on ..... The fact is, this government has consistently done what it's wanted, despite public opinion, despite strong opposition, when it suits it.
This current uranium "debate" is a JH fabrication. It did not come from any other place in the Australian community. Of course I'm cynical about the outcome!

I'm in complete agreement with you on these points, dadpad. I just don't want the "debate" to take place with the current context, that's all. We should have discussed the things you've mentioned a long time ago. In a completely different context.

Last Update: Wednesday, June 7, 2006. 0:10am (AEST)



Nuclear sites crucial to review, says Beazley



Mr Beazley says a nuclear debate must include talk of sites. (File photo) (ABC)

The Federal Opposition says nuclear power is unaffordable and should not be pursued.

The former Telstra Chief and nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski has been appointed to run an inquiry into nuclear energy and uranium mining.

The Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says the Prime Minister wants the review to endorse nuclear power.

"That is what the Prime Minister would sincerely hope from it, something to justify his position," he said. .. <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1656857.htm

My one fear is that it is not in fact a debate.

John Howard never backs a horse unless he knows it will win, (at least not usually) snowy was interesting and so was backing Kennet over Baillue (? a double blind) but I suspect there were other political ends to be met. Pulling the rug from under state labour governments after they have committed funds to a budget is at the top of my list.

Dad, it definitely isn't a debate. The enquiry is so narrow that the economics of other energy generation systems isn't being investigated, just the economics of nuclear power. So narrow in fact that the waste disposal issue isn't even being looked at - which I would have thought was crucial.

Maybe someone should turn Howard's fear rhetoric back on him?

Hey John, which would you prefer the an islamic extremist bombing a nuclear power plant or a coal burning plant?

I would have thought an enquiry into water use and storage in Australia would have been much more important - or even one into oil alternatives - given our dependence on road transportation.

Is there anyone left who believes he acts in the national interest - I doubt even he does any more....

Last Update: Thursday, June 8, 2006. 12:28pm (AEST)

WWF head criticises 'economic' nuclear inquiry

Prime Minister John Howard has been accused of focussing too much on the economics of nuclear power, rather than what can be done in the energy sector to reduce global warming.

Chief executive of environmental group WWF Australia ,Greg Bourne, says he turned down a role on the Prime Minister's nuclear inquiry because its focus is too narrow.

"As far as WWF is concerned, nuclear power is not the solution to climate change," he said.

"Climate change really is the issue. ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1658321.htm

... & then there's JH & co & their current kafoofle with the ACT on gay marriage. Is there any section of Oz society left where the conservatives don't know best about what's right & proper for us all? :

.....John Howard said the decision to overrule the ACT legislation was about preserving the institution of marriage.

"We are not anti-homosexual people, or gay and lesbian people," the Prime Minister said.

"It's not a question of discriminating against them. It's a question of preserving as an institution in our society marriage as having a special character. And if you look at the legislation, what it effectively says is that a civil union ... will be treated for all purposes as being equivalent to a marriage." ... <extract from article>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19400712-2702,00.html

And why does everything JH spouts about seem like an echo of Dubya? Hasn't he just come out (pun not intended) and said that he's looking to amend the US constitution to make gay marriage illegal?

What is it with these people?

Yep, why indeed, hinge? I was listening to AM a couple of mornings ago & thinking that the comments about gay marriage from Bush were interchangeable with those of JH. Of all the leaders (& I use the word loosely) for our prime minister to emulate, he chose that one!!! Lucky us!

<sigh>

I think we're going to have to learn to laugh at him (albeit somewhat bitterly!) if we're going to survive his rule in one bit. There's gotta be life & hope after this frightful Oz Dark Age, yes?


Yes?

<talking to myself: mumble, mumble ...>


It's just that it used to be such a good place to live, Oz!

It's still not a bad place, but I think we are sh1tting our own nest, internationally.

Time for the country to shift to the left - a labour/greens coalition. Sigh.

Clarke and Dawes last night (Love those guys)


JOHN HOWARD: Very good to be with you, Bryan, and thank you.

INTERVIEWER: Can I take you back, Prime Minister, to this decision of yours a few days ago to veto the sale of the Snowy Hydro.

JOHN HOWARD: Yes, I think we made the right decision there, Bryan. A very important issue of public equity. A very important issue.

INTERVIEWER: Which you just noticed at the last minute, didn't you?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, there was a fair build-up of public pressure on that issue, Bryan, and, of course, we've got to listen to that. We've got to listen to the people.

INTERVIEWER: And, of course, it had the benefit of shafting two State Labor part-governments as well.

JOHN HOWARD: Bryan, as I said, I think public equity was the issue and I think the right decision was made. A very important issue.

INTERVIEWER: So, what's going to happen to the river?

JOHN HOWARD: What river?

INTERVIEWER: Well, the Snowy. The fear was the river system would be destroyed by the private sector.

JOHN HOWARD: Well, that's not going to happen now, Bryan. That's not going to happen.

INTERVIEWER: So, it's going to be destroyed by the public sector, is it?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, not really my department, what happens to the river, Bryan. I mean, the important thing was that we listened to the people. We were asked to listen to the people and we listened to the people.

INTERVIEWER: People power.

JOHN HOWARD: People power, Bryan! Very, very important. Victory for people power.

INTERVIEWER: And will you be listening to people on other issues as well?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, I listen to these bloody - to people all the time, Bryan.

INTERVIEWER: Well, the GST, they didn't want that?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, you don't ask turkeys whether they want an early Christmas, do you, Bryan? Let's be sensible.

INTERVIEWER: Well, they didn't want to sale of Telstra either.

JOHN HOWARD: Well, of course they didn't, Bryan - they owned it.

INTERVIEWER: Yes, well, they didn't want to go to war in Iraq.

JOHN HOWARD: Well, they would have, if our argument had made any sense at all.

INTERVIEWER: OK, and now you've announced an inquiry into nuclear power.

JOHN HOWARD: We have, Bryan. A very, very important inquiry.

INTERVIEWER: And this is an independent inquiry?

JOHN HOWARD: Open and very independent - fiercely independent inquiry, yes.

INTERVIEWER: What is it called?

JOHN HOWARD: It's called 'How Can we Best Introduce Nuclear Power Right Across the Country by Tuesday?'

INTERVIEWER: And who's running it?

JOHN HOWARD: Good point, Bryan. Good point. This is run by people who want it introduced by Monday.

INTERVIEWER: By Monday? So they are unbiased.

JOHN HOWARD: Well, the point that I'm making, Bryan, is that they haven't been appointed to this commission simply because they agree with the outcome.

INTERVIEWER: How do you know what the outcome of the inquiry is?

JOHN HOWARD: Have you seen who's running it?

INTERVIEWER: Yes, Ziggy Switkowski.

JOHN HOWARD: I rest my case, Bryan.

INTERVIEWER: So there's going to be a customer service number you can ring -

JOHN HOWARD: No, no, there is no customer service number, Bryan. That was his previous job. I think he'll go pretty well in this role. I think he'll go very well in this role.

INTERVIEWER: Will it be hearing evidence, the inquiry?

JOHN HOWARD: Oh, yes, a lot of expert testimony.

INTERVIEWER: Who from?

JOHN HOWARD: From the people who are running it. They are the experts. That's what they are there for.

INTERVIEWER: Save a bit of time.

JOHN HOWARD: Well, Bryan, you know, we've got a result - let's get on with the inquiry. Let's have it.

INTERVIEWER: Prime Minister, thanks for your time.

JOHN HOWARD: Yes, always good to see you, Bryan.

INTERVIEWER: Thanks, guys. Taking a bit of flak over this decision to override the ACT on the gay marriages -

JOHN HOWARD: Yes, well, the media people: you're a bunch of clowns, Bryan. I've seen this reported as some kind of anti-gay thing. It isn't.

INTERVIEWER: What isn't?

JOHN HOWARD: The 'We Hate Gay' legislation we're bringing in.

INTERVIEWER: Really?

JOHN HOWARD: I've seen us described as homophobic. I don't even know what it means. What absolute crap. I'm sick of listening to this stuff.

INTERVIEWER: You just hate gay people?

JOHN HOWARD: No, no, no, we hate a lot of people. Not just gay people - how long you got? - we're a bit iffy about overseas people; women: there's your trouble.

INTERVIEWER: Anyway, Prime Minister, I've got to go. I've got to pick up the kids.

JOHN HOWARD: Kids? That's a good thought. I'll make a note of that.

C & D spot on, as always!

Love 'em!:

JOHN HOWARD: Well, I listen to these bloody - to people all the time, Bryan.

INTERVIEWER: Well, the GST, they didn't want that?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, you don't ask turkeys whether they want an early Christmas, do you, Bryan? Let's be sensible.

According to Brendan Nelson, Australian troops in East Timor are not in a "war-like situation" (therefore aren't paid war-like wages), unlike their counterparts in Iraq.

... & speaking of East Timor....
If, like me, you've hard difficulty making sense of the "east vs west" rivalries there, here's a letter from this morning's AGE which puts a convincing perspective on the situation:

Bitter harvest of Indonesia's divide-and-rule
June 9, 2006/AGE letters

I AM an East Timorese Australian citizen who was born in Dili. It is heartbreaking seeing the destruction of my home town. It jolted me back to the Indonesian scorched-earth policy in 1999 and brings up a lot of anger and frustration.