PK, thats the precise problem. It should be up to the companies whether they publish that information or not. If they dont publish the information, dont buy from them. If they do, good for you. Legislating that they MUST publish the information, firstly RESTRICTS the information we get, plus destroys the right to free speech of business owners to market their products in the way they choose. Theres nothing "voluntary" about what Get Up is coercing businesses into.

Thats fine, but thats not what Get Up and Greenpeace have in mind. Its part of a continual process of introducing legislation. Fine, you want information and some companies give that...next are you going to demand ALL companies gather this information? Next are you going to demand that all companies follow your ethical guidelines? Its perfectly reasonable to start a counter campaign before the snowball starts rolling. Beyond that, surely your agree with Tim's 2nd point that DGR's MUST be A-political in nature, and serious questions should be raised about Greenpeace's DGR status.

People have a right to privacy, as do corporations. While GetUp feels like they need to boycott anyone who doesn't think like they do, people who dont feel the same are equally likely to criticise and choose to associate with whatever boycott Get Up has planned. Having said that, the Get Up mentality appears to be a bully stand over tactic that's often seen from the union movement. But to the issue at hand here, Greenpeace should not be a DGR. They've made it quite clear that they have a political agenda, which runs counter to the rules for DGR listed corperations. If Greenpeace wishes to remain tax free, they should play by the rules and get out of politics.

I support the NAIRU solution.

SSRN Abstract Database Search Results The abstract you requested was not found. Please check your search criteria and try again. Interesting bit o research there Tommy.

pretty sure they published CJ's article. Unless your article makes no sense...why would it be rejected?

IIRC, it was called Australians against the tea party or something like that. Nothing wrong with it. Just pointing out that you were affiliated with such a group. Goes to pointing someone who may know more about those groups than I.

Australian leftists also have facebook groups dedicated against the Tea party. I know our old friend Mr Johnson is affiliated with one such site.

I dont see a problem here. Keep in mind, tax minimisation is completely legal, and done in a way to generate "socially responsible behaviour" from companies.

Are you claiming that a life of austerity with rationed goods "stimulated" the economy?

I can get behind this.

if only that were the case, Howard presided over a massive expansion of middle class welfare. Howard left in 2007, if you wanted to debate the direction of Howard's liberals, you should have spoken to him then. I'm not Howard, and he isn't leading the libs now. Would you endorse abolishing welfare entitlements for non-whites only (as a stopgap of course)? It would be beneficial for non-white groups to be excluded from things like the minimum wage and other entitlements actually. It increases their marketability in employment (think about it, if you had two equally qualified people but you could price discriminate to pay one less, which would you hire). The removal of welfare entitlements for non-whites hurts whites, unless there are jim crow like laws put into place specifically to harm non-whites. If entitlements exist, they should be across the board. interesting idea. I would love to pay concession rates on everything. Theres a large range of equality promotion programs i'm excluded from i would love to be applied "across the board".

*Marriage act of 1961. Although the fact that its in section 51 of the constitution means any future government could come in and drive it up to a federal issue again.

You know Nick, the general movement of the liberal party is to decrease the welfare state, and increasing the access of de facto couples to welfare doesnt meet that aim, as does increasing the scope of the marriage act to include gay marriage. You and I will find common ground in that the primary issue here is that the Marriage Act of 1961 was created in the first place to put into place a government subsidy on "the traditional family unit" as Conservatives put it. This is the real issue. The liberal party shouldn't be promoting gay marriage, because they shouldn't be promoting marriage. There essentially should be no legal difference between marriage and any other type of contract entered into between people (whether they be individual or groups). The ideal situation, for the liberal party (if they are to stick to their guns on the issue of shrinking the size of government) is to target the elimination of the marriage act of 1965, and leave it to individual states to determine the best case scenario for marriage to their constituents.

He should be free to write and profit from any other book (especially fictional ones regarding guantanamo).

Tax and spend is back i guess.

shouldn't have been reproduced.

uranium standard or bust.

because it makes government the arbiter of news accuracy in the country? I dunno. There was a lot of backlash against Jeff Kennett when he threatened the ABC after they got into a fight with him.

To put it simply. Turnbull should not be forced out of the party, nor should there be a call for him to resign. At least, that is if the liberals still believe in the marketplace of ideas.

That is to say, i dont believe it will be a Beazley/Crean/Latham wilderness for Labor.

Not nessesarily as long as you think. Reactionary opposition to bad governance hinges on Abbott's delivery of the most popular of his policies (of which, there's practically none). People arent exactly huge fans of Carbon Sequestering, corperate tax cuts and paid maternity leave has been killed inside the party itself. He'll win as a protest vote, and any labor politician offering something different to what the greens are saying will sail in.

I'd like it if labor did preference them tbh. The greens are a problem for labor now well and truely, since they present as an "alternative" to labor, instead of "the major parties" now.

Mark, that'd make sense if we were going into the 2010 election. However, as we have seen from the Victorian (arguably the safest state for the greens outside of Tasmania) State Elections, the Greens have plateaued. In other states with strong anti-labor sentiments (NSW and QLD) there's a stronger distaste for the greens, with them making no headway in the NSW election, and grim forcasts for them in the upcoming QLD election. A double dissolution (right now at least) would give the libs what they want, a split vote amongst the left (that is, any green increase coming at the expense of labor seats), and disenfranchised voter swing their way. Whether there are more greens as a result would be somewhat irrelevant.

The selling of uranium has been a closed issue, we sell to pakistan (via china), and we dont sell to india.