Barak Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 while sending more troops to Afghanistan. What happened to the "change" that was promised?

Chomsky: I am one of the few who is not disappointed with Obama because I placed no expectations on him. I wrote about Obama's positions and prospects of success before the start of his campaign. Saw your website and it was clear to me that this was a moderate Democrat in the style of Bill Clinton. There is of course a lot of rhetoric about hope and change. But this is like a blank sheet where you can write anything. Those who despaired at the recent moves of Bush sought hope. But there is no basis to expect any one time to examine properly the substance of Obama's speech.

His government has treated Iran as a threat due to its uranium enrichment program, while countries that possess nuclear weapons such as India, Pakistan and Israel did not suffer the same pressure. How do you evaluate this way of proceeding?

Chomsky: Iran is perceived as a threat because they did not obey the orders of the United States. Militarily this threat is irrelevant. This country did not act aggressively beyond its borders for centuries. The only aggressive act occurred in the '70s under the Shah's government, when, with U.S. backing, they invaded two Arab islands. Of course nobody wants Iran or any other country to have nuclear weapons. It is known that this state is governed today by a loathsome regime. But apply the same labels that are applied to Iran to partners of the U.S. such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt, and it will only be lost to Iran on human rights. Israel invaded Lebanon with the blessing and help from the U.S., five times in thirty years. Iran has not done anything like that.

In spite of that, the country is considered as a threat...

Chomsky: Because Iran has followed an independent path and not subordinate to any order of international authorities. They behaved in a manner similar to what Chile did in the seventies. When this country was ruled by the socialist Salvador Allende, it was destabilized by the U.S. to produce "stability." It was not a question of any contradiction. It was necessary to overthrow the Allende government - forcible "destabilizing" - to maintain "stability" to restore the authority of the U.S. The same phenomenon is occurring now in the Gulf region. Teheran objects to the authority of the USA.

How do you value the goal of the international community to impose severe sanctions on Tehran?

Chomsky: The international community: a curious expression. Most of the countries in the world belong to the non-aligned bloc and strongly support Iran's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. It has repeated often and openly that it is not considered part of the so called "international community." Obviously only those countries that follow U.S. orders belong to it. It is the U.S. and Israel threatening Iran and this threat must be taken seriously.

For what reasons?

Chomsky: Israel now has hundreds of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Of the latter, the most dangerous comes from Germany. This country provides Dolphin nuclear submarines that are virtually invisible. They can be equipped with nuclear missiles, and Israel is prepared to move these submarines to the Gulf. Thanks to the Egyptian dictatorship, Israeli submarines may pass through the Suez Canal.

Chomsky: What's At Stake in the Issue of Iran

The very thing on which the "powers that be" have depended for control of the masses, is the information that only they have access to - and then to twist - to re-punctuate - to use euphemisms - why go on?

I have been trying to find the West Australian Court case regarding the rights of Newspapers to be biased in their articles which are considered political.  My recollection was that such bias was their right only if it is in their Editorials!  And I can't find it.

However, I doubt if any reasoning person would challenge the truth that the MSM is Corporation owned and Corporation based.  After the Howard era, we have, for all intents and purposes, one and a half major media moguls in our country. In some strange but realistic way, we employ these parasites.  What ever happens - we pay - literally. So let's not give up our chance to limit the power of the Corporations by voting for a government of the people.

We are told, glibly, that concentrated power is not permitted by the Liberals because it subdues competition - what crap.  Keating's efforts to prevent the Liberal policy of the amalgamation of all major industries (especially media) into one governing body is there - not a threat - its there.  No way can anyone argue honestly that that situation is in the "National Interests".

Call it what you will but, they ARE unions of enterprises that band together for self preservation.  The last time I went to the trouble of identifying the Corporation Unions as opposed to the Workers Unions showed that there are more Corporation "Associations" or "Councils" than the Union of Australian voters can possibly compete with on a level playing field.

IMHO it is a fact that Corporations and their representative legal identies, will take as much cheap labor and low-maintenance Oil Rigs as they can get.

Conversely, with nothing but the support of the people they respresent, the worker's (there's that anti-Howard word again) Unions have remarkably survived 12 years of individual threats including those by the so-called "WorkChoice" legislation which, should the Mad Monk prevail, will come back in some euphimistic way.

As an ex and proud unpaid and elected Union representative, I know that we as a group have made mistakes but, when we do we pay for it and from a very small reserve.

How about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?  Who do we think will eventually pay for that?

I do feel sorry for Obama - Bushit was very pleased to hand his fractured country to a Democrat.

If we are forced to choose between a Rudd government and that of a "return to the service of the US" then I hope my fellow citizens will think, reason and use logic.

I cannot believe that there is any alternative if we are to force the MSM to print the truth or disappear.  Wishful thinking - but at least it is positive.

God Bless Australia and "all who sail in her".  NE OUBLIE.

The brutal irony of the media's biased reports on the Middle East nation of Iran is that, THEY are the people being demonized, not the US/UK/Zionist criminals that continue to profit by "stirring the pot".

Add to that the truth that Iran is totally abiding by the regulations of the NPT while the Zionist masters of the US/UK alliance want that "rogue independent" state brutalized as the other peaceful nations of that area.  Someone wrote once, and I cannot remember where, (now that's Murdocracy) that IF ever the persecuted Muslim states in the area of those ancient civilizations have a breathing space to unite in defence of Their right to exist then the tragedies of WWI and WWII will be repeated and only profited by the very people who used their financial and power of misinformation to cause another catastrophe.

The catch here is that, at this time of dictated financial power, the Zionists have proven that they have the ultimate control of the two major weapons of a dictatorship - finance and information.

Why is it that every person, or organization, who may have a faultless history, is automatially dismissed by the Jewish media when they oppose the genocide in Palestine? Just one example. We are all complicit.

God Bless Australia and all single passport voters. NE OUBLIE.

Hi Ernest,

Does the following help?

In 1992, the Australian High Court recognised that freedom of expression was implicitly protected in the Constitution to the extent necessary to give effect to the system of representative government enshrined in the Constitution.

In 1997, the High Court confirmed that this implied that protection of freedom of expression was limited to 'political or government matters' relevant to the making of informed decisions about voting in federal elections or referendums.

This narrow basis for the protection of freedom of expression excludes many matters of public interest and falls far short of international standards governing freedom of expression. The protection is also relatively weak and many restrictions on political speech pass the federal constitutional hurdle.

Australian defamation law generally follows the English model from which it originated: plaintiffs need prove only that material was published that identified them and would make an ordinary person think less of them. They do not need to prove that the material was false, that it was published with any fault, or that they suffered damage. This increases the need for safeguards for the protection of free speech.

Research suggests newspapers in Australia are markedly less likely to make defamatory allegations about political or business fraud and corruption than their counterparts in the USA, where it is far harder for plaintiffs to successfully sue the media.

Australia | 20th Anniversary Book 

Yes John...

This is why satire, as used on this site with hit and miss results, allows one to defeat "defamation" laws to a greater extend and therefore expose the crookeries of the crookers with the dirty bath water. But the crookery is often within the limits of the loopholes — because many loopholes in laws have been let be secretly by public lawmakers who dream one day of entering private practice where the rewards are a hundred fold. And the "letter" of the law can be manipulated beyond recognition... To say the least, we're mild and restrained somewhat, not because we're scared but mostly — and I speak from my little corner of the entertaining world — information is fluid, a lot more information is actually known below the surface of "media" and many political machinations have been known in advance... Many times, I have made "illustrious allusions" rather that state facts, because the "facts" only become real when they get "acted upon" a few months later while the moves and the number crunchings have been set in motion much earlier. It was quite a few years before the financial troubles that I stated that the housing bubble was going to burst due to credit problems, because it was right in front of everyone nose that the difference of potential was being stretched beyond reality... We're not out of the fire yet, though Australia has been "lucky" to have Swan and Tanner at the helm of SS Canberra to protect the "little people" like us. Had it been a Costello or Hockey in charge of the dance floor, we would have been told to tighten our belts while the banks would have been swamped with largess like those of the UK and America to go and play derivatives or pay their ugly gambling debts... There is so much gambling debts outthere, that we should be really scared... That the miners have to pay their overdue dues now is only a storm in a teacup... They're only protesting for show, blah blah blah, while their accountants are working the suction pumps... I will explain later.

Meanwhile the machines of disinformation are well oiled on many fronts from Abbott's underpants to global warming. Global warming is still humanity's greatest challenge despite the other important fiddles of political structure, of goonery and of the pain of war.

yes Gus, just like lawyers, their lips are moving ....

How can you tell the mining industry is lying? It's issued a press release

from Crikey .....

Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

MINING INDUSTRY, RESOURCES SUPER PROFITS TAX

Don't believe a single word you read in the mainstream media from the mining industry about the impact of the Resource Super Profit Tax.

The mining industry routinely and systematically lies about government policy, with a long-running Chicken Little act about even the smallest policy changes that might affect it. And most of the media uncritically recirculate their lies, either because journalists aren't sceptical and informed enough to subject their claims to analysis, or because they complement the smear campaigns run by the right-wing media.

Over the weeks and months ahead - for the Government has foolishly left open an extended consultation period in which to develop the RSPT with the states and mining companies - you'll be able to see the miners crank up their lies. Watch for the predictions of job losses, reduced dividends and abandoned projects. Watch for the dodgy modelling from economic consultancies designed to back up the wild claims. But also watch for what they tell investors, because they tell the public one thing about how disastrous things will be and investors and the ASX quite another.

We saw all this during the CPRS debate. The miners' favourite trick then was to blame massive "job losses" on the CPRS by comparing industry growth under a rosy "business as usual" scenario with slightly lower growth under a dire "CPRS" scenario and claim the difference as actual job cuts - when they were simply the difference between one very high growth rate and one slightly lower growth rate. They did this three times for the coal industry, with reports by ACIL Tasman and Access Economics, and a report by the now-bust Concept Economics for the Minerals Council. All forecast "job losses" of between 3-9,000.

Unfortunately, the CFMEU was awake to the scam and commissioned its own modelling to use the same data as the coal industry and show that there would actually be an increase of 10-16,000 jobs in the coal industry out to 2020 under the CPRS.

And as I've shown previously, and the Grattan Institute confirmed recently in relation to coal mining and LNG, the additional costs faced by the mining sector from a carbon price were so small as to be virtually irrelevant.

Watch for the same trick this time, although it will be harder because the Government has already produced modelling showing the RSPT coupled with the resources exploration rebate will actually increase jobs from the "business as usual" scenario.

The mining industry's preferred cliche is that any changes will "kill the golden goose", and that's been getting a thorough workout already. Back in 2006, the Howard Government, News Limited and the mining industry joined forces to whip up a scare campaign about Labor's proposed reversal of WorkChoices. Steve Knott of the Australian Mines and Metal Associations said removing AWAs would cost the industry $6.6 billion a year.

John Howard called Labor's IR policies "a dagger to the throat of the Australian mining industry" and Terry McCrann, ever the wordsmith, warned Labor would "kill the mining goose that promises to lay many more and bigger golden eggs".

As it turned out, the only thing that came close to killing the goose was the GFC. But the big miners had no trouble slashing employee numbers during the downturn under Labor's new IR framework. Indeed, Rio Tinto boasted of "record" iron ore production in October.

That might have been because AWAs had little to do with mining industry profitability and productivity. In fact, in 2007 the CFMEU showed that 10-year productivity growth in the coal industry, which features collective agreements and a strongly-unionised workforce, far outstripped that of the Western Australian iron ore industry, and productivity had actually fallen under AWAs in the Western Australian gold mining industry.

The miners also predicted dire consequences from the GST back in 1999. And as the splendidly sensible Peter Martin showed last week, the sky was going to fall in if a gold tax was introduced in the 1990s. I haven't been able to check, but I'd bet real money they thought compulsory superannuation would destroy the industry as well.

Talk about an exploration and extraction. The Australian mining industry is world-class when it comes to rent-seeking.

The lesson here isn't so much that the mining industry is a pack of liars. It's what the media does with the lies. We've all been engaged in a collective flagellation of Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan for the last 48 hours over their cowardice and failure to embrace reform. But as we're already seeing with the limited reforms they've picked up, the media flog them even if they do pursue meaningful change.

The Government will now be criticised for attacking the mining industry, which is dominated by vast multi-nationals generating billions of dollars. The absurd claims of the miners that they'll move offshore - made even as Newcrest acquires Lihir in a $10 billion deal -- will be taken seriously. Dire forecasts of job losses will be run with a straight face, despite previous claims being exposed as blatant falsehoods.

It's more of the media's "perpetual present" that I've complained about before. If it happened longer than five minutes ago, it never happened.

The media want it both ways, naturally. We're all high-minded economic purists when it allows us to criticise governments for failing to undertake significant reform. But should a government be so foolish as to attempt something, the media doesn't take long to get stuck into them, and gleefully provides a platform for critics of reform, no matter how often and how badly the latter have been proven wrong.

Then again, the media's primary interest is in conflict and contest, rather than good policy outcomes.

Where, other than in this forum, can the public find a fair dinkum journalist's report on issues so badly skewed by the MSM that the facts reverse their lies and should be open to all voters?

Why do I support what Bernard prints rather than the tripe of the "Murdochracy"?  Because Bernard presents his facts which influence his opinions.  Fair enough.  In an election year, that even meets my layman's interpretation of the "Freedom of Expression".

"The lesson here isn't so much that the mining industry is a pack of liars. It's what the media does with the lies. We've all been engaged in a collective flagellation of Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan for the last 48 hours over their cowardice and failure to embrace reform. But as we're already seeing with the limited reforms they've picked up, the media flog them even if they do pursue meaningful change."

How very true and yet, so obvious that one can find it difficult to come to terms with the fact that the media does not tell the story as it is but, as they want it to be seen.  Criminal depraved indifference.

If the US has finally realized that, given the circumstances which caused the Great Depression were repeated recently, there was an urgent need for financial regulation which demands a responsibility upon the Financial Institutions to be able to guarantee their excesses, why can't we do the same to the media responsibilities?

Democracy and "freedom" exist only in the brain washed minds of nations with governments that owe their existence to the "powers that be" - namely the unelected media whose influence has been bought and paid for by the very people who make the laws to keep them supreme.

IMHO, the Rudd government is trying to reform our society to a more balanced brand of sharing the rewards as we would the responsibility.  Big Business considers employment as the most "controllable" of costs and, if there is a measure of justice in that principle, shouldn't the same people enjoy the increase in prosperity? Especially when that prosperity comes from the employee's own property?

Meanwhile, the Rudd government is subject to misinformation to such an extent that one could be forgiven for believing that "Howard has returned".

And the posturing "Mad Monk" has suddenly become the darling of the press.  Struth.

God Bless Australia and give us the strength to ignore the Murdochracy.  NE OUBLIE.

To drive home your point Ernest .....

from Crikey .....

The games people play: a credibility gap yawns again for miners

Glenn Dyer and Bernard Keane write:

CAPE LAMBERT RESOURCES AND INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM, CLIVE PALMER, RESOURCES SUPER PROFITS TAX, TONY SAGE

Fancy News Ltd and other media outlets (such as the Seven Network's 6pm News) giving oxygen to characters such as Tony Sage and Clive Palmer and their claimed dummy spits over the proposed Resources Super Profits Tax.

Seven's Mark Riley described Palmer as one of our leading industrialists. Clive is nothing of the sort. Clive has a company called Mineralology, and before that he had another that was going to float, but didn't (the GFC ate it). But lately Palmer has struggled to get a project up. There have been lots of announcements of deals with companies in Asia, but nothing concrete. Clive's last big deal was a huge coal project in Central Queensland. His boosting of it and himself upset his partner, which denied a deal had been done.

Sage chairs the listed Cape Lambert Resources and International Petroleum and has more credibility in developing resources projects than Clive. Indeed, if you consult Sage's glowing Wikipedia page, it insists he is "one of the leading figures in the lucrative global resources industry".

But their almost simultaneous public appearances within a day of each other raises some intriguing similarities. One might almost wonder if they were one and the same.

Clive is a big unit, a giant of a man with similar-sized opinions, and a love of blue sky projects and soccer: his team (subject to enough finance) is based on the Gold Coast (called Gold Coast United) and might make it back to the National League's coming season for a second time, although Clive cut funding to his team for a while in a fit of pique.

Anthony Sage, or Tony to some media, members of the soccer fraternity and a lot of people in Perth, is chairman of Cape Lambert, International Petroleum, and has a soccer team in the national league, the more financial Perth Glory.

Tony has just splurged a bit of loot to grab Robbie Fowler, the former England and Liverpool player from North Queensland in the hope he can bring glory to the Glory in the new season.

And both have declared the RSPT will kill mining projects - although Palmer appeared to run into a bit of difficulty yesterday when a South Australian project he declared was under threat from the RSPT turned out, um, not to actually exist.

Cape Lambert yesterday revealed on Perth radio it was going overseas to Sierra Leone and Greece (good luck there, chaps) instead of proceeding with a project in Western Australia.

The right-wing smear machine gleefully seized on the announcement. "It may be followed by others as the industry reels from the prospect of giving up billions of dollars in profits," one outlet piously declared.

One of the characteristics of the mining industry's campaign to undermine the government's CPRS was a credibility gap between what they told the press and the public, and what they told investors, about the impact of the CPRS.

Well, you guessed it, the gap is back. Cape Lambert's announcement has yet to be made to the ASX (or even on its own website). Companies are required by the ASX to disclose anything of material significance to their share price to investors.

So why didn't Cape Lambert announce it on the ASX? Well, turns out Tony Sage doesn't think it's material. "$1 million spend out of $300 million," he told Crikey this morning. The Australian reports him as referring to $10 million-$15 million yesterday.

$1 million. It seems the RSPT-induced flight of capital is not quite what some in the media would have us believe.

There is another similarity shared by Tony and Clive; their love of colourful characters. Clive, of course was one of the "entrepreneurs" who flocked to Queensland and "advised" the conservative governments of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He was a PR flack for the Nats and has made secret of his admiration for the late Premier. Indeed, he was so impressed he bought the party, because he's the main bankroller of the beleaguered LNP.

Tony, on the other hand, seems to have stayed away from politics. His colourful mate is one Frank Timis, a bloke that, as The Oz itself reported recently, the ASX won't let list a company after some unfortunate run ins with the law and bannings overseas.

"An appeal by International Petroleum against a trading ban stemming from its dealings with Frank Timis has been dealt a significant blow, following fresh revelations about the controversial businessman's poor record of corporate governance.

"Timis, who is poised to become a director and major shareholder of the publicly listed company, was at the helm of a London-based miner that was sanctioned and fined two years ago for misleading the market ... the penalty was in addition to the record pound stg. 600,000 fine Regal Petroleum received last year for disclosure breaches that occurred under his watch.

"Detailed in International Petroleum's replacement prospectus, which was released yesterday, the earlier charge had not previously been disclosed in any of its three prospectuses published over the past three months.

"The admission couldn't come at a worse time for the company, which is preparing to appeal the Australian Securities Exchange's move to ban it from trading if an acquisition of Timis' Eastern Petroleum proceeds. The decision was based on concerns about level of influence that Timis, who has several drugs convictions and has been barred by the Toronto Stock Exchange, would have over the merged company.

"International Petroleum's latest prospectus says Timis was chairman of an AIM-listed miner that made two announcements to the market in 2007 later determined to contain "misleading and unrealistically optimistic statements" about its results ...

"International Petroleum chairman Tony Sage denied that the information had been hidden from investors, describing it as a "very minor matter". He said the company had been aware of the sanction since February and had disclosed it to ASX staff."

Good luck in Sierra Leone, Mr Sage. 

And then more Ernest .....

So what do the experts know? "Super Tax on BHP, Xstrata May Stall Mining M&A in Australia" blathered a story on Bloomberg this morning quoting fund managers and others on the proposed super tax on mining company profits. "BHP Billiton Ltd and Xstrata Plc's expansion and acquisitions plans may stall on Australia's plan to increase taxes on mining companies whose profits have surged $A80 billion ($74 billion) in the past decade. Any probability of mining takeovers proceeding has lessened," said Tim Schroeders, who helps manage about $1.1 billion at Pengana Capital Ltd.

Oh, dear.

An hour later this statement was issued by Newcrest and Lihir Gold "Newcrest to snap up Lihir". "LGL shareholders will receive one Newcrest share for every 8.43 LGL shares they own, plus $A0.225 cash per share, less any interim dividend declared or paid by LGL for the half year ending 30 June 2010. Based on Newcrest's closing price of A$32.06 on May 3, the implied offer price from Newcrest is now A$4.03 per LGL share, valuing LGL at approximately A$9.5 billion."

It's the old story, do as the money does, follow the money trail. If the management of these companies reckon the tax either won't impact them or they can live with it, then the rest of the complaints and moans from miners are just special-interest pleading, as we get at every major change, and then forget about when the sky fails to fall. All very Chicken Little.

So yesterday's $14 billion sell-off, mostly in resources stocks, was top of the paper and bulletin news last night and this morning. Will the Newcrest-Lihir $9.5 billion merger get the same treatment?

And guess which story replaced the first story on the Bloomberg home page? This one "Newcrest Agrees to Acquire Lihir for About A$9.5 Billion." Oops. The first story is still running on the Australia and New Zealand pages. 

Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton opened sharply lower and were trading down for most of the session.

But bargain hunting investors contributed to a come-back, as did a reassurance from the ratings agency Fitch that the Federal Government's proposed 40 per cent tax on mining profits will not affect the ratings of the big miners.

By the close, Rio Tinto had gained 1.8 per cent to $68.28, and BHP Billiton closed up 15 cents to $38.74.

Shares in News Corporation closed 4.2 per cent lower, after the company's outlook for the current financial year disappointed investors.

----------------------

Gus: I-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g...

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says he cannot see how the Coalition could back the Government's move to put a 40 per cent tax on mining profits.

Mr Abbott has given his strongest indication so far that the Opposition will block the tax after meeting with senior mining executives in Canberra today.

Mr Abbott has been speaking with BHP Billiton executive Marius Kloppers and Rio Tinto Australia managing director David Peever in Canberra as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd held a series of meetings with mining heavyweights in Perth.

--------------------------------

Rio Tinto has denied media reports that it has shelved plans for an $11 billion mining expansion in Western Australia because of the Federal Government's tax proposals.

The world's third biggest miner informed investors that no decision has been made to shelve any projects because of the Government's resource super-profits tax.

The company says it is reviewing the potential impact of the proposed tax on all of its Australian operations and new projects.

The director of resources and mining at Balnave Capital, Peter Rudd, says it is typical for companies to take time to assess the effect of changes in government policy.

"Any change to taxation requires a review of a project, looking at its viability and how that might alter in the context of increased taxes, and so this would be part and parcel of that process," he said.

However, it also says a feasibility study into its planned Western Australian iron ore expansion "is continuing as previously announced", in response to media reports the expansion plans had been shelved.

I quote:  And guess which story replaced the first story on the Bloomberg home page? This one "Newcrest Agrees to Acquire Lihir for About A$9.5 Billion." Oops. The first story is still running on the Australia and New Zealand pages. 

Why aren't they legally forced to print a retraction?  Where are their obligations and regulations?  The Gap is certainly back.

Last time I checked, there were more Employer Unions (whatever euphemism they use, they are Unions)than there are Worker Union's. That translates to me that there is a very wealthy, powerful and well organized "anti-worker" lobby in Australia.  Correctly called the "Corporations" whose government is currently led by the Mad Monk and the "mincing Poodle" (who has had his hair treated to a "cut it like a boxer" not a "Poodle").  Sensitive dog.

No matter what power the Media Corporations have, they would have to depend on their biggest financial supporters - like Clive Palmer (where does he get his money from?) Using the broad brush to the word, these Corporation CEO's the world over are basically "crooks" with an oft-used jail avoiding apology or, repayment of some of the money that they have criminally obtained.

IMHO, because of the viciousness of the media and its industrial favored attacks, Kevin Rudd must be doing something right?  I have the feeling that he has anticipated the Corporation anger at his "share the wealth" policies and had steeled himself to handle it.  The loyalty of his excellent front bench and the entire Labor Parliamentarians are clearly a credit to him. 

Murdoch's minions have even stooped to "suggesting", of course without any tangible evidence, that Julia Gillard would be, could be, a better P.M?   Struth and fair dinkum "how do they get away with it?"  Rudd/Gillard are a top level team and something that the extreme right desperately needs to discredit.

What do we think of Minchin on Q & A?  A typical Nazi policy of "let the smokers die" - its better for the health system! Shades of starving concentration camps.  But, perhaps the giggling Minchin is favoring euthanasia?  However, that is a compassionate attitude - never let that be said of Nick the nut.

Finally John and Gus – can you give me a calculated guess on what Kevin Rudd will do when, not if, the Senate blocks Supply? 

The reason that I believe that distinct possibility is that “Jolly” Joe has raised the subject and, given the many D.D. triggers that the Howardists have taunted Rudd with - and were ignored - do we have a repeat of the “Dismissal” on our hands?  The unstable Tony Abbott and his “band aid” front bench, is quite capable of doing it.  No one knows what he will do – not even him.

In that disgusting act in 1975, the House of Representitives passed a motion of "no confidence" in Malcolm Fraser, which would prevent his takeover.  However, the G.G. refused to accept it.  Interesting isn't it?

Is the Rudd government allowing the disgraceful behavior of the dysfunctional Coalition to “hang themselves”?  And on Murdoch’s door step?

Whatever happens, and going by the reforms that Kevin Rudd wants to introduce, this man has my respect.  He is certainly not without intestinal fortitude in my book.

It’s a filthy game John and Gus and the one’s that succeed are usually those who enjoy selling their country to Corporations.  Isn’t that part of Greece’s problem?

God Bless Australia and our contemporary Federal government.  NE OUBLIE.

Section 57 of the Australian Constitution provides that:

If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

If after such dissolution the House of Representatives again passes the proposed law, with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.

The members present at the joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the proposed law as last proposed by the House of Representatives, and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one House and not agreed to by the other, and any such amendments which are affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall be taken to have been carried, and if the proposed law, with the amendments, if any, so carried is affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by Houses of the Parliament, and shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent.

Section 57 provides for the following two-stage process for double dissolutions.

The process commences if the House of Representatives passes a bill which the Senate

• rejects, or
• passes with amendments which are unacceptable to the House of Representatives, or
• ‘fails to pass’.

If, after an interval of three months, the same bill is passed by the House again in the same or next session, and the Senate

• rejects the bill, or
• passes it with amendments that prove unacceptable to the House of Representatives, or
• ‘fails to pass’ the bill

then a double dissolution trigger is in place: under section 57 ‘the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously’. Where the Senate rejects or fails to pass a bill, the interval (which may be longer than three months) commences when the bill is rejected or fails to pass and concludes when the bill, having been reintroduced in the House of Representatives, is passed by the House.

In practice, the Governor-General’s power to dissolve the parliament is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister—thus a trigger bill becomes part of a government’s political armoury in the period prior to the next election. If a government decides to act on a trigger bill and advise the Governor-General to dissolve the parliament, the Governor-General may seek further information in order to be satisfied that the conditions of section 57 have been met.

If the Governor-General’s power is exercised, the parliament is dissolved and an election is held for both Houses. Section 57 does provide, however, that a double dissolution cannot take place within the six months before the date of expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

There have been only six double dissolution elections to date:

• 5 September 1914
• 28 April 1951
• 18 May 1974
• 13 December 1975
• 5 March 1983, and
• 11 July 1987.

God Bless Australia and sack the Senate.  NE OUBLIE.