"It's Not Even a Debate"!

[icyfroth]

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has claimed the date of Australia Day should not be changed despite fierce debate over the issue in recent years.

Many Indigenous leaders have been pushing for the date of Australia Day to be moved from January 26, the date that marks the First Fleet landing in 1788 and the beginning of British colonisation.

A new survey released by the Institute of Public Affairs on Monday said despite the debate, 71 per cent of Australians were in favour of keeping the date as is.

The poll found the 71 per cent believe “Australia has a history to be proud of” and “Australia Day is an authentic way for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians to celebrate being Australian”.

On Monday morning Sunrise breakfast show co-host Samantha Armytage grilled Mr Morrison over whether he agreed with the results of the poll or if he thought the date should be changed.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/scott-morrison-shuts-down-sam-armytage-australia-day-question-015251182.ht...

Good on him!

[bright.ton42]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Put me down as a 'don't care'. I can't really see the point in it. We Poms have never needed a National Day to wave flags and convince ourselves we are better than everybody else.

---

Me ... I don't celebratre Australia Day because I think we're better than anyone else.......never crossed my mind.  I have pride in being an Aussie and living here and for me that's worth celebrating.  As for the date I don't care, but as  it offends some indigenous people then change it, it's so easy.  I'd like to see a day that unites all Australians but I doubt this will happen. 

[davewil1964]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

---

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
Nothing wrong with GetUp unless of course you helped elect this bunch of crooks.

---

GetUp is a voice for a small minority of Australians and do a good job of representing their views. Nothing wrong with that so long as it is kept in perspective. Like all noisy minorities, they don't represent the views of the majority of people and should not be allowed to run rough shot over our democracy.

---

Unlike organisations like the BCA? Who would represent an even smaller proportion of the population, but seem to think they have a god-given right to run roughshod over our democracy when it suits their wallets.

Getup claims a membership of 1 million, which would likely be the number of people who've ever signed one of their petitions. Even if it was 100,000 they still have greater engagement with the 'majority' than all the mainstream political parties put together, so which ones are representing a small minority?

[myoclon1cjerk]

The I.P.A and the Minerals Council for starters. Both of those are broad based and represent the majority of Australians. Some members of the latter have even donated money to bushfire relief. That should ease their conscience for the 000's that have lost their homes and the wholesale destruction of our wildlife. As long as they can keep ripping that black stuff out of the ground.

[tezza2844]

---

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
The I.P.A and the Minerals Council for starters. Both of those are broad based and represent the majority of Australians. Some members of the latter have even donated money to bushfire relief. That should ease their conscience for the 000's that have lost their homes and the wholesale destruction of our wildlife. As long as they can keep ripping that black stuff out of the ground.   The I.P.A and the Minerals Council for starters. Both of those are broad based and represent the majority of Australians

And   I thought the age of comedy was over

---

[chameleon54]

---

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
The I.P.A and the Minerals Council for starters. Both of those are broad based and represent the majority of Australians. Some members of the latter have even donated money to bushfire relief. That should ease their conscience for the 000's that have lost their homes and the wholesale destruction of our wildlife. As long as they can keep ripping that black stuff out of the ground.

---

There has been A LOT  of trash talking about Coal mining on this forum from Labor supporters. Fair enough, the stuff is contributing to climate change and if people want it banned for that reason it sounds reasonable at first glance. But here's the kicker. In 2019 Coal overtook Iron Ore to become Australia's largest export commodity. As well as generating the bulk of our electricity it also contributes around 16% of Australia's income.

This raises a very simple and very genuine question.

Are the regular contributors to these forums who oppose coal mining willing to accept a 16% reduction in their wages / social security payments / standard of living plus a tripling of their electricity bill on top of the 16% reduced income in order to have coal mining and exports banned ? And lets not forget forcing the closure of what is left of our manufacturing industry forcing tens of thousands of families onto unemployment benefits.

Because that is precisely what opponents of the coal industry are arguing for.

[davewil1964]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

---

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
The I.P.A and the Minerals Council for starters. Both of those are broad based and represent the majority of Australians. Some members of the latter have even donated money to bushfire relief. That should ease their conscience for the 000's that have lost their homes and the wholesale destruction of our wildlife. As long as they can keep ripping that black stuff out of the ground.

---

There has been A LOT  of trash talking about Coal mining on this forum from Labor supporters. Fair enough, the stuff is contributing to climate change and if people want it banned for that reason it sounds reasonable at first glance. But here's the kicker. In 2019 Coal overtook Iron Ore to become Australia's largest export commodity. As well as generating the bulk of our electricity it also contributes around 16% of Australia's income.

This raises a very simple and very genuine question.

Are the regular contributors to these forums who oppose coal mining willing to accept a 16% reduction in their wages / social security payments / standard of living plus a tripling of their electricity bill on top of the 16% reduced income in order to have coal mining and exports banned ? And lets not forget forcing the closure of what is left of our manufacturing industry forcing tens of thousands of families onto unemployment benefits.

Because that is precisely what opponents of the coal industry are arguing for.

---

Given the alternative is likely to be no economy and no jobs, yes.

But you are glibly avoiding the fact that we could, if we put our efforts to it, employ every one of those couple of thousand coalminers (who won't have a job for that long given everything is being automated) in replacement industries. Which would likely generate more export income and more jobs.

Thus keeping the economy ticking along.

Not to mention that at some point, even if we don't, the rest of the world will wake up and stop using coal. What then? Better to be proactive than reactive. There's a lot more money to be made being on the cutting edge than trying to grab a slice of the market when it's too late.

You farm marginal land. How long to you expect your land to be marginal rather than desert?

[chameleon54]

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

---

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
The I.P.A and the Minerals Council for starters. Both of those are broad based and represent the majority of Australians. Some members of the latter have even donated money to bushfire relief. That should ease their conscience for the 000's that have lost their homes and the wholesale destruction of our wildlife. As long as they can keep ripping that black stuff out of the ground.

---

There has been A LOT  of trash talking about Coal mining on this forum from Labor supporters. Fair enough, the stuff is contributing to climate change and if people want it banned for that reason it sounds reasonable at first glance. But here's the kicker. In 2019 Coal overtook Iron Ore to become Australia's largest export commodity. As well as generating the bulk of our electricity it also contributes around 16% of Australia's income.

This raises a very simple and very genuine question.

Are the regular contributors to these forums who oppose coal mining willing to accept a 16% reduction in their wages / social security payments / standard of living plus a tripling of their electricity bill on top of the 16% reduced income in order to have coal mining and exports banned ? And lets not forget forcing the closure of what is left of our manufacturing industry forcing tens of thousands of families onto unemployment benefits.

Because that is precisely what opponents of the coal industry are arguing for.

---

Given the alternative is likely to be no economy and no jobs, yes.

Thanks Dave, So your vote is take a 16% cut in standard of living.......

I,m not actually decided on whether I would be willing to take a 16% haircut to my income to ban coal in Australia. I suspect if we don't start seriously addressing the issue of climate change, Australian and global populations will be heavily impacted anyway and wont have any choice in the matter. 16% reduction in living standards might look like chicken feed in twenty years time.

But you are glibly avoiding the fact that we could, if we put our efforts to it, employ every one of those couple of thousand coalminers (who won't have a job for that long given everything is being automated) in replacement industries. Which would likely generate more export income and more jobs.

Sorry cant agree with you on this one Dave...... What industries are these coal miners going to be skilled at ? Your post also ignores my main point on unemployment. Its not just the coal miners who will be out of a job, its the tens of thousands of people who are still employed in what remains of our manufacturing sector. Manufacturing is struggling now and will never survive a tripling of its electricity costs due to the closure of all coal fired power stations in Australia.

Just because we choose to close ours, other countries will still be driving their manufacturing industries on cheap reliable coal. Our economy would very quickly become a crippled basket case with recession looking like the 1920,s / 30,s depression while the rest of the world went on its polluting merry way. All of the pain would be for nought as the planet would still cook. 

Thus keeping the economy ticking along.

Not to mention that at some point, even if we don't, the rest of the world will wake up and stop using coal. What then? Better to be proactive than reactive. There's a lot more money to be made being on the cutting edge than trying to grab a slice of the market when it's too late.

Possibly, but Australia has too small a population, poor standards of education compared to many countries and has already lost a lot of its best minds and research base to overseas countries.

You farm marginal land. How long to you expect your land to be marginal rather than desert?

Its already being badly effected. I took a look at ten year rainfall statistics last night. My remote farm ( district ) used to receive 325 mm. long term average rainfall. Over the last decade it has averaged 198 mm. Stock carrying capacity has halved over the last 30 years. 

My high rainfall property near Adelaide has an established long term district average rainfall of 750 mm. Over the last decade it has received an average of just over 500 mm.

Both properties down by approx 1/3.....Its actually quite scary stuff.

---

[johcaschro]

Both properties down by approx 1/3.....Its actually quite scary stuff.

Not scary enough to drop your support for an industry which contributes to global warming/climate change, such as does coal?

[johcaschro]

And where did you get this "16%" figure from, anyway? Do you have a link for that?

[chameleon54 · Accepted solution]

---

@johcaschro wrote:

Both properties down by approx 1/3.....Its actually quite scary stuff.

Not scary enough to drop your support for an industry which contributes to global warming, such as does coal?

---

Please cut and paste the comments where I supported the coal industry.............Nope ?.... it aint there is it.

I,m simply being pragmatic instead of jumping on some populist Rah Rah bandwagon of emotional, unrealistic BS..

The simple reality ignored by many o this forum is that if Australia banned coal tomorrow it wouldn't make one single scrap of difference to global warming. Other countries would simply buy less pure , more polluting coal from other countries to run their electricity generation and heavy industry. Australians would continue to buy their OS made cars and white goods with all of the inbuilt production pollution achieving absolutely ZIP.

On the downside, banning coal in Australia would not result in a 16% lowering of our standard of living. That is just the direct loss of income from coal exports. The effect would be much greater as unemployment sky rockets, recession hits, home foreclosures go through the roof, retail crashes etc. You had better hope that internal smug, sanctimonious, left wing glow keeps you warm in the depths of winter, because no-one will be able to afford to turn the heating on. The Australian economy would make Greece look like a nation of kings.

And again it would all be for ZIP because the rest of the world ( making up 98.5 % of global pollution ) would simply go on its own merry way.

The only solution is to get the global giants such as Europe, China, U.S.A. and India to play by the same rules and good luck with that one.