• We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
I'm not a member of the CEC, so this is not in their defence. Purely from a point of balance. I know how much you demand fairness, equality and a voice for all..lol!

1. Tinker with the banking system = Implement Glass-Steagal Banking Seperation.

What is “Glass-Steagall”?

The 1933 Glass-Steagall Act was a leash on Wall Street for 66 years. It established a firewall to protect the financial functions of banking that were necessary to the daily lives of the American people, from the speculators on Wall Street. Specifically, under Glass-Steagall, commercial banks which held deposits protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)—the savings accounts, chequing accounts, and business trading accounts—were forbidden from owning, or being owned by, Wall Street investment banks. It didn’t stop speculation, but it severely curtailed it, because it denied Wall Street investment banks any access to the enormous deposit base of the American people. It was when Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, that Wall Street finally got access to the commercial banks and their deposits, and all forms of speculation expanded exponentially.

Australia has never had the Glass-Steagall standard applied to our banking system. The Commonwealth Bank when it was government-owned provided a check on the power of the private banks, but since the Hawke-Keating "reforms" of 1983, our nation's banking system has been deregulated and opened up to foreign banks. Simply re-establishing a government-owned national credit bank will not be sufficient. Australia needs the Glass-Steagall standard. All commercial banks must completely divest themselves of all non-commercial banking activity and banking units. No cross-management or cross-ownership with investment banking units may remain. Commercial banks alone will be protected by governments; every other entity is on its own. As the funny money is left to vaporise only what is real remains, and no matter how bad that looks, we can deal with it. We will enact the Commonwealth National Credit Bank Bill 2013.

2. Tinker with the banking system = Enact the CEC’s Commonwealth National Credit Bank Bill

Following the application of the Glass-Steagall standard to our banking system, we will enact a new government bank.

Remember the Commonwealth Bank, before the Hawke/Keating ALP sold it? It was the “people’s bank”, which served the people, and was owned by the people. The centrepiece of the urgently-required reorganisation of the financial system will be the establishment of a new people’s bank, a Commonwealth Bank-style, government-owned national bank.

Whereas Glass-Steagall is an emergency protectionist measure, to erect a firewall between the imploding financial system and the people, so they keep their savings, the CEC’s Commonwealth National Credit Bank Bill will facilitate the next step, which is the reconstruction of the economy, and the creation of a new financial system, in a way that furthers the common good of the people.

The policy of banking for the common good was the vision of the “old” Labor Party of King O’Malley, Frank Anstey, Jack Lang and John Curtin, which was initially realised through the 1911 establishment of the Commonwealth Bank. In its first years of operation during WWI, under the governorship of Sir Dennison Miller, the Commonwealth Bank: forced the private banks, through competition, to lower their fees; then it “saved” those same banks by averting a “run” on the private banking system; financed many important war-related measures, including the national wool clip; and financed the first great national infrastructure project, the east-west Indian-Pacific Railway.

Sadly, with the untimely death of Governor Miller in 1920, private financial interests directed Tory Prime Minister Stanley Melbourne Bruce to hand over control of the bank to private bankers, and strip it of essential powers, so that it never functioned as effectively again. Save for the brief period of WWII, when John Curtin and Ben Chifley empowered the Commonwealth Bank to regulate and direct the entire national banking system for the war effort, the function of the Commonwealth Bank was systematically eroded over the decades. It lost its reserve banking powers in 1959, which put its central banking function under private control, and was eventually reduced to a simple, government-owned savings bank, before it was privatised in three tranches between 1989 and 1996. However, even as a simple savings bank, its role was essential: it guaranteed every depositor’s savings (which guarantee was lost once it was privatised) and it kept the private banks’ fees low, by forcing them to compete. Once it was privatised in 1996, the big four banks went on a profit spree by hiking fees and slashing staff and branches, and gouging over $80 billion in profits in ten years!

Now, in this period of banking collapse and economic depression, it is time for a new national bank with all the powers to regulate and direct the national economy. The Commonwealth National Credit Bank will issue the long-term credit governments need to finance the urgently-needed new water, transport and power infrastructure necessary to get Australia’s productive industries functioning again. That credit will be at very low rates of interest, of 2-3%, and over long terms of 25-40 years, and this way, the government can do away with private, toll-funded infrastructure, and public-private partnerships (PPPs). The credit issued by the CNCB, utilised in this way, will filter through to the entire economy, and create over a million high-skilled, high-wage, productive jobs, directly and indirectly.

3. Develop a Moon/Mars project = Australia's Blueprint for Economic Development
Isherwood: Australia needs a space program
The 40th anniversary of the moon landing is a reminder of how far backwards the world has gone under the monetarist policies of globalisation, and a lesson that genuine economic prosperity requires exploration, scientific discovery, and new technologies, declared Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood today.

“For that reason, Australia, which under globalisation has collapsed from an industrial powerhouse to little more than a colonial quarry, needs its own space program,” he said.

The Australian economy in the 1950s and 1960s was able to play a key role in early space exploration, including being just the fourth nation to launch its own satellite from its own soil, at Woomera in South Australia in November 1967.

However, it was immediately following that high-point, that Australia’s protectionist industrial policies championed by the great Country Party leader John McEwen, under which Australia had developed world-beating industrial and scientific capacity, were systematically dismantled by British imperial free trade policies, and most of the cutting-edge areas of Australian industrial development, including the space program, nuclear power program, and machine tool production, began to be slashed.

“And look where it got us,” Mr Isherwood said, “$1.2 trillion in foreign debt, collapsed manufacturing, collapsed agriculture, and a quarry economy that depends on China for its survival.

“If Australians want a real economic recovery, don’t look for it in a rise in the stock market, or in housing prices to even more unaffordable levels—look for it in a resurgence in world-class scientific and industrial capacity, which developing our own space program will catalyse.

“We have all of the ingredients for a successful space program: We have brilliant sites for space bases on Christmas Island and Cape York Peninsula, because of their proximity to the equator.

“And we have hardy souls in our scientific community, including our own home-grown astronauts Andy Thomas and Paul Scully-Power, and cutting edge rocket scientists in our universities, who have toiled away with minimal support to develop new space technologies, but who could achieve spectacular results if they were charged to lead a national effort.”

Mr Isherwood concluded, “A space program isn’t a cost, but an investment, which will mobilise our engineering, manufacturing, construction and scientific capabilities, and generate spin-offs for the economy that create jobs and raise our living standard.”

For background on an Australian space program, click here.
 
Not to mention their other wacky ideas for economic development like....

Australia's Ring Rail Network

Australia’s rail sector must be revolutionised, both for the sake of transport within our country, and also to tie Australia into the rest of the world, in particular into the world’s greatest population centres, at the eastern and south-eastern Asian terminals of the Eurasian Land-Bridge. This revolution will have two axes: Prof. Endersbee’s proposal for a Melbourne-Darwin Asian Express, and a vast upgrading and expansion of Australia’s rail network centring upon the new magnetic levitation (mag-lev) rail technology pioneered in Germany, and which is now being built in China.

Our nation’s rail sector at present is a pathetic shambles, so bad that the 2001 Australian Infrastructure Report Card prepared by the Institution of Engineers, Australia, a very conservative, understated body, rates it at D-, with the crucial Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane rail corridor rating an F, due to “poor track co-ordination, steam age alignments and inadequate signalling and communications systems.”

With the exception of rail lines built expressly to service mineral deposits, most of Australia’s rail system was built at the turn of the 20th Century. The report of the federal Parliament’s Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform, Tracking Australia warned in 1998, “Without urgent and substantial investment in this infrastructure, major sections of the national rail network are likely to become irretrievable within ten years. In this context, the rationale for increased investment in rail infrastructure has to be about averting the potentially enormous costs of diminished or defunct rail services between major cities on the eastern seaboard, including increased road construction and maintenance, and the negative externalities associated with large and growing volumes of road traffic.”

That report was three years ago, and, under privatisation and competition policy with the exception of the beginning construction of the Alice Springs-Darwin railroad, the rail system has not improved significantly since. The “negative externalities” in the report refer to the horrible figure of $15 billion per year lost in road accidents on overcrowded, deteriorating roads along with an estimated $13 billion annual loss due to congestion, which is expected to rise to $30 billion by 2015. Only a tiny fraction of the nation’s passenger traffic moves by rail, and, since 1975, rail’s share of interstate non-bulk freight has declined from 60% to 35%, even as the trucking industry is suffering record rates of bankruptcies and psychological and health problems associated with horrific working hours. Between 1975 and 2001 the Federal Government spent $43 billion on roads and a miniscule $2 billion on rail, even though for medium and long distance, rail is an inherently much more efficient mode of transport. Therefore, we must plan to spend some tens of billions on the industry over the next ten years, both in upgrading existing lines, but in particular in building the Asian Express and a mag-lev grid tying together all of our major population centres.
The Asian Express
Development Corridors
A Maglev rail system

Water projects

The situation in much of rural and regional Australia was starkly portrayed by Ernie Bridge, upon his quitting the ALP in 1996. Bridge was a former Western Australian MP and Minister for Resources Development, and was the chairman of the Watering Australia Foundation.

“Governments nowadays are simply mauling inland Australia. The practice of so-called microeconomic reform or economic rationalism, call it what you like, has brought about the most destructive dismantling of basic infrastructure in this nation’s history and it is apparent the major parties are not prepared to recognise this and alter their economic policies… When one sees population reductions of over 50% in some areas of our nation, it emerges as a frightening situation. I cannot stand back and see good battling Aussies simply handing over the keys to banks at such regular intervals as is happening. when you talk and look into the eyes of many people of the outback, you see signs of fatigue and a loss of hope.”

By contrast, the great water projects depicted on the maps, and described in more detail below, are exemplary of the scale upon which Australians must think, if we are to conquer our dry, largely empty continent, as well as the deepening depression. The precise details of each project (some bits and pieces of which have been completed), are much less important, than the general approach, which is to think big, i.e. to think of the continent as a whole, and to think long-term, of what will be required over the next 25-50 years, at minimum, with much higher rates of growth than the negative real growth rates of the post-industrial (and, increasingly, “post-agricultural”) nonsense of the past three decades. As the 1996 Australian Encyclopedia was forced to acknowledge, in describing such projects as the Clarence, Bradfield and Reid Schemes, in particular, “Modern investigation methods have ensured that most of the proposals are feasible in technical and engineering terms,” though it protests that “the same can not be said for their economic feasibility.”

However, such well-chosen, well-engineered projects, provided that they are integrated with other vital aspects of infrastructure, such as a high-speed rail system to get products to market, are always cost-effective, because they unleash far more revenue-generating economic activity than they cost, provided one calculates on a real, physical basis, and not on the lunatic “user-pays”, “full cost recovery” method of economic rationalism, which is expressly designed to ensure that little or nothing will ever be built. For a refreshing example of something in the direction of such real, physical accounting versus the bean-counting “it costs too much” nonsense, see the Queensland Government’s Office of Northern Development figures on the economic activity to be unleashed by the revised Bradfield Scheme, versus the cost of that scheme, which proves, hands-down, that the scheme will more than pay for itself—in fact, it almost pays for itself in a single year! (available from the office of MP Bob Katter, who has spearheaded the effort to finally build the Bradfield Scheme, or from the CEC).

And remember, by the standards prevailing in 1939, we “couldn’t afford” to fight World War II. Yet, as Ben Chifley used to emphasise, we spent 350 million pounds per year during the war vs. 60 million per year pre-war, and, notwithstanding the great losses of men and materiel (and the fact that war production itself, as opposed to its technological spin-offs, is usually a dead loss) we came out a far richer nation than we went in. The present depression must be tackled with similar methods, and similar determination.

Australia’s growing water shortages (see Map 1 “Australia’s Water Problems”), will only be overcome through the kind of bold projects outlined on Map 2, “New Great Water Projects”. The projects provide the vision around which we must mobilise our nation.

Nuclear and Thorium Power

Australia Must Go Nuclear

The High-Temperature Reactor is Coming

Solve the Water Crisis With Nuclear Desalination

Super-Safe Nuclear Power: the Meltdown-Proof Pebble Bed Reactor

Thorium: The Preferred Nuclear Fuel of the Future

Hot Air Over Wind Energy

Solar Cells versus Plant Cells: In Defense of Chlorophyll
 
All these posts are spam. You claim you aren't a member yet you continue to simply republish all their articles here – in full – and without offering any comment of your own.

Instead why not tell us one of their ideas that you find interesting, at least that way you'd be putting something up for discussion.
 
Are you serious? You must be joking, right? I have said time and time again that I find some of their ideas interesting. They are the ones I post here. The ideas I don't agree with I don't bother posting. It's all up for discussion, but to discuss something you need an open mind.

Here's one for you. Do you think Australia as a country would benefit from developing our own space program? Would it help us economically? Do we have the capability and resources to build and maintain a space station?

You know my view. I think it would be a positive.

If I post something on here, I find it interesting and I'm simply sharing it with a wider audience. I thought that was what a forum was for. I have no agenda, and once again, I am not a member, nor do I believe I'll become a member of the CEC.
 
Australia as a country? You mean a government run and government funded space program?
 
You've gone a bit quiet. That wasn't a trick question.

Of course all scientific research is valuable, and I love spaceships (and Neil deGrasse Tyson), but in the real world money (and who is paying) determines what is researched. Historically things like space programs and other pure research, as well as the arts, are funded when economies are booming, and are the first things cut when the economy slows. CSIRO has sustained huge funding cuts over the last couple of years.

The idea of pumping funds into costly space programs is appealing, but when we have homelessness, long queues at public hospitals, cuts to TAFE and school programs, and cuts to welfare for those in most need, it is - frankly - ridiculous. In fact, Geoff Toovey would probably call for an investigation.
 
Sorry for the late reply, this time of year is hectic! So let's see. Where are we up to....

Well, there is a heck of a lot more to space programs than spaceships and Neil deGrasse Tyson, economically speaking. Good luck with eliminating homelessness, long queues at public hospitals (although, if it's an emergency you will be admitted straight away), and budget cuts. No government has been able to do it yet. It's hard to fathom the thoughts behind some budget cuts. A very good friend of mine, Greg Bell, was the regional manager of a government program a couple of years ago. The indigenous employment and economic development program I think it was called. He and his team were tasked with helping the indigenous population into fulltime employment throughout CQ, and they were very successful at it. Their department was actually making money! Then with the change of government, the entire program was cancelled state wide, and they were all out of work. Greg is now a director with Qld Education.

Most people do not understand what benefits a space agency adds to an economy. They think it is all about flying to the moon or Mars, when in reality, it could be a tremendous ongoing boost for our nation and our people

An article I stumbled across a while back now.....

Did you know that Egypt have started a space program? Egypt, a country with 40% of its population living below the poverty line, and a busted economy. They're going at it full tilt because they realise that, "There is a lot more to the space industry than what first meets the eye and though it may appear to be the indulgent of some nerdy elitist fantasy, the primary goal of this investment is to produce technology that directly benefits Egypt’s most impoverished, and in the long run, stimulates and diversifies the nation’s economy". They plan to use satellite technology to help manage their natural resources, and most importantly, find ground water deposits. A little silly you may say, given the presence of the Nile, but utilizing untapped groundwater in dryer areas of the country out of the Nile’s reach could vastly increase agricultural production.

In 2001, India launched a similar initiative that used satellite data to manage water use in farming. Eight years later, it caused crop yield to increase by 25%, irrigated area to go from 6%-14%, milk yield to increase 20%, farmer’s income to increase by 40%-80% and soil erosion to decrease by 21 cubic meters per hectare. Needless to say a project like this in Egypt could lead to a much more robust agricultural sector, a stronger economy and a decrease in poverty.

Aside from the potential a space program has to improve resource utilization, the implications of such a program are much farther reaching. Right now, every $1 invested in NASA yields $10 of economic output for the US and this is largely because of patents.

Space is tricky and countries or businesses involved in it usually encounter a lot of tough engineering problems. Often times the solutions to these problems turn out to have applications in fields that have nothing to do with space. These solutions are patented, companies pay to use them and ultimately create very useful consumer products.

This has resulted in technologies like invisible braces, ear thermometers, smoke detectors, microchips, GPS, CAT scanners, heart pumps, robotic limbs, water purifiers…and the list goes on. In fact, so many technologies come out of NASA’s work that they publish an annual magazine called Spinoff just to catalogue them all.

At this point in time, Egypt’s space agency will be nowhere near the level of NASA and it will not produce any revolutionary technologies overnight, but it could lay the foundation for a technology-based economy.

Sixty years ago when India established the ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization), Bangalore was farmlands and empty space but the high density of engineers working in close proximity created the perfect atmosphere for a tech hub to emerge. Today, Bangalore is the ‘Silicon Valley of India,’ and hosts many home-grown multinational companies like Infosys which has 94 development centres around the world and is valued at roughly $30.8 billion dollars.

Given time Egypt’s (and Australia's?) space agency could do the same, especially if it’s placed in Smart Village. A single satellite now may not be much but in a few decades as the program grows, recruits more engineers and collaborates with the private sector, that measly satellite could give us a great deal more than we thought it would.

The best part of all of this though, is that it’s cheap enough that it won’t take much money away from other endeavours. The US spends around $18 billion a year on NASA, and India, which has a much smaller and cheaper program, spends$1.3 billion on their various space endeavours. This seems like a lot but that’s only 0.5% and 0.34% of their national budgets respectively.

For the time being, the space agency will not operate on such a large scale and only has plans to build one sattelite. If EgyptSat 1 (the last satellite Egypt launched) is any indication, that should only cost the government $20 million. For scale, that is 0.17%, not of Egypt’s total budget, but of the $12 billion of aid received from Saudi Arabia and the UAE since Morsi's ouster.

Meanwhile, the bulk of resources can, and hopefully will, go towards tackling the country’s rampant poverty. Going back again to the example of India: in an effort to curb their significant poverty rate, the Indian government passed a bill that will provide subsidized food to 800 million Indians, costing the country $20 billion a year.

At the same time, India also joined the new ‘space race’ to Mars, by sending a probe to the red planet at the cost of $73 million. Their one time expenditure on the probe was less than 0.4% of the annual budget for the aforementioned bill. So it is entirely possible to produce cutting-edge technology while working to help the less fortunate. Not only that, but in the past 20 years India has successfully brought down its poverty rate from 45% to 22% with further investment in technology being a key part in their plans to reduce it further.

Given our current capabilities, poverty will never be eradicated, education will never be fixed and the economy will never grow to its full potential. We invest in science and technology and the future to improve our capabilities so that one day we can do all of those things; but if we only think about the present then we will stay in the present.

I still think Australia needs to look at a space program more seriously. The benefits could be huge.
.
 
No worries about the delay, but I too have time constraints and reading 1000 word replies is simply too taxing.

Meanwhile, the bulk of resources can, and hopefully will, go towards tackling the country’s rampant poverty

"can, and hopefully will" ... hahaha

OK, so the USA which led the world for many decades in space research obviously has no poverty! Oh, wait :(

Interesting that you advocate the benefits of science research yet you are a climate change denier, despite overwhelming scientific agreement worldwide that it exists and that it is a planet-threatening issue (apart from scientists paid by the petrochemical industry lobbies, of course)
 
No worries about the delay, but I too have time constraints and reading 1000 word replies is simply too taxing.



"can, and hopefully will" ... hahaha

OK, so the USA which led the world for many decades in space research obviously has no poverty! Oh, wait :(

Interesting that you advocate the benefits of science research yet you are a climate change denier, despite overwhelming scientific agreement worldwide that it exists and that it is a planet-threatening issue (apart from scientists paid by the petrochemical industry lobbies, of course)

Wrong. I'm no climate change denier. Where do you get that from?? Oh, because you think that I'm a member of the CEC. Even though I am beginning to lose count of the amount of times I have told you I'm not. Even though I have said before that I don't agree with them on all and every point, as with most political parties.

Still though, you continue to write what you think is correct, make judgements on others as though you are the only one that is right, and as usual, refuse to even consider, let alone accept, that some ideas that are contrary to your own may in fact be correct. At least you are consistent!

How about you tell me exactly the best way to solve poverty in Australia, and the quickest way to get there? It's very easy, and extremely counterproductive to simply sit back and take pot shots at people and ideas. Particularly when you are seemingly bereft of ideas yourself.

Or are your replies a gee up? A way to pass time during the off season. Hahaha!
 
Wrong. I'm no climate change denier. Where do you get that from??
Are you serious?
You wrote the following, did you not:
the fraudulent pretext of ‘climate change’.”
he British Royal family is personally leading the charge for a legally-binding global treaty which will strip nations of their sovereign rights to economic development for the benefit of their citizens, under the pretext of an evil hoax: that carbon dioxide emissions, from the very industrial processes that feed, clothe and house people, are warming the planet.
Haven’t We Had Enough of Green Fascism
the climate change fraud
Heir to the throne Prince Charles in the lead up to the Paris UN climate conference perpetrated a sinister hoax, by using the climate change fraud
This hoax by Charles,

And now you say that's not your view??? What about this then:

I find some of their ideas interesting. They are the ones I post here. The ideas I don't agree with I don't bother posting.

You pretend that you want to have a serious discussion but as soon as someone engages you backpedal at a hundred miles an hour. I will leave you to it for now, but you have been reminded, any further republishing of entire propaganda articles is against the conditions of use (and the spirit) of this site and might be considered spam!
 
Glass-Steagall is not really warrented in Australia. Our banks are not going anywhere soon. I would agree with the ACCC that the fees are too steep for transactions and late payments.

What would i do to end poverty?
1 tax all churches as a business
2 merge state and local governments. Three levels of government is a massive waste of money and resources. We have a govenment for every 90,000 people.
3 abolish income tax and the GST. Introduce a funds transfer tax, everytime money comes out of your bank account you py a 1% tax on it. So your boss gets paid for services and instead of collecting gst the customer pays 1% tax, boss pays wages and instead of income tax he pays 1% tax on the withdrawal. As you spend the wages you pay tax of 1%. The more you buy the more pay. No tax dodging from multinationals, workers will have more cash to buy more goods that are now cheaper anyway.
Treasury figures show that such a tax wuld generate more revenue than ALL the tax collected in 2014 but people will have more money to spend on cheaper goods and services.
 
921 views in only 2 pages suggest to me, a lot of traffic. A lot of traffic = good for the site, regardless of your political opinion.

Judging by the amount of viewers, I think I'm right. Why are you being so aggressive, and why does it irk you so badly?? If I find something interesting, that doesn't mean I agree with it. I just appreciate another's point of view, because I'm not an ego driven, one eyed, reactionary, that could do with some serious introspective, like a lot of Australians. I find articles on UFO's interesting too. Does that mean, by your small understanding, that I believe in aliens??

This quote , "I find some of their ideas interesting. They are the ones I post here. The ideas I don't agree with I don't bother posting".
has been taken out of context, or maybe I did not convey myself properly. There are many things I don't agree with that they say, and no amount of word play will change that. I don't agree with : Climate change denial. I don't agree with their insistence of repealing what they call "fascist laws that have taken away the civil rights of Australians, These include anti-union, “anti-terrorism”, and “racial vilification” laws.

I do agree with their other ideas, including dramatically expanding resources to State public health facilities, so that all who need health care will receive it promptly. Something I thought you'd agree with??

I can't help but notice that you have avoided the question of how you would solve the poverty problem in Australia. To add, prove to me that NASA has been a hindrance to the economy of the USA, and that it has done nothing to aid their poor.
 
Last edited:
Glass-Steagall is not really warrented in Australia. Our banks are not going anywhere soon. I would agree with the ACCC that the fees are too steep for transactions and late payments.

What would i do to end poverty?
1 tax all churches as a business
2 merge state and local governments. Three levels of government is a massive waste of money and resources. We have a govenment for every 90,000 people.
3 abolish income tax and the GST. Introduce a funds transfer tax, everytime money comes out of your bank account you py a 1% tax on it. So your boss gets paid for services and instead of collecting gst the customer pays 1% tax, boss pays wages and instead of income tax he pays 1% tax on the withdrawal. As you spend the wages you pay tax of 1%. The more you buy the more pay. No tax dodging from multinationals, workers will have more cash to buy more goods that are now cheaper anyway.
Treasury figures show that such a tax wuld generate more revenue than ALL the tax collected in 2014 but people will have more money to spend on cheaper goods and services.

Food for thought! Thank you for contributing @manlyfan76
 
Another thing that needs fixing:
Change to an OPT OUT organ donar system. Unless you opt out of organ donation every Aussie is an organ donar. The current system is almost hopeless and gives little other than hope. Aussies are lazy and (from experience) its too hard to sign up for organ donation.

Another less serious thing id vote for is opt in for junk mail. Unless you sign up every year you will not recieve any mail that is not 1) Addressed to an occupant or 2) offical notice. The junk mail is a massive waste of paper.
 

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom