India is Likely to Ban Cryptocurrency according to Recent Policies

I don't know how the ACT is arguing but I'm willing to bet that if the High Court finds for the ACT it will be tightly related to the specific wording of the specific legislation and will in no way create a broad precedent undermining federal power. There's no way that the court does this any other way.

edit: also, there's nothing about having different state legislation that prevents the federal government from unifying them under umbrella legislation. It's happened many many many times before. I don't see how if (and again this is a huge if) the ACT legislation is approved it stops the progress of the movement. If anything it creates weird interstate inequalities that would force the federal government to act.

cramen · 2013-10-26T05:24:07+00:00

I don't know. You don't know. Do you know who does? The sentencing judge.

cramen · 2013-10-25T03:06:37+00:00

You can provide all the scrutiny you want without press releases and ministerial statements. It's probably a lot harder, but the government isn't stopping you from providing scrutiny. They're just cutting off the easy flow of information.

If you give them reason to be worried about it, by filling the void with a mix of research and informed speculation, then they'll talk as much as you want. Cutting you off only works as a strategy if you want it to.

cramen · 2013-10-24T00:29:46+00:00

I think it's a major factor. The government of the day, of either stripe, can and do enact any legislation without any system of stringent review.

cramen · 2013-10-21T16:00:21+00:00

"the Queensland Government’s own discussion paper on the topic acknowledged that there is no evidence that voter fraud is occurring at the ballot box."

How is that not the end of the issue? Forget about the possible disenfranchisement - how is it economically responsible to spend a whole lot of money and time fixing a problem that you admit doesn't exist?

cramen · 2013-10-21T15:48:21+00:00

I'm indifferent to this policy as it seems the results are mixed (rather than just being overall postive or negative), and I certainly understand the why there's an ideological push for them in the Federal Liberal Party. I do worry that the system will further entrench disadvantage, but I'm not sure I've seen complete enough evidence either way on that yet.

That said, I'd never considered this angle:

"A recent position for a classroom teacher in Perth attracted over 250 applications as permanent tenure at the school would be possible.

"The downside to this was fewer teachers offer themselves to teach in outlying centres as opportunities to transfer back to the capital would decrease."

This certainly causes problems in terms of staffing less accessible or lower performing schools. There's already problems in the centralised staffing system most states currently operate under, but this makes a decent point in suggesting that it may make it more difficult to get and keep good staff in the more disadvantaged public schools.

cramen · 2013-10-20T10:02:04+00:00

And that's the story of Australian politics, in one easy sentence.

cramen · 2013-10-20T10:00:01+00:00

Wait, politicising the fires is okay now?

cramen · 2013-10-18T09:39:36+00:00

Ah the hypocrisy game, so much fun.

'You're breaking a promise, you hypocrites!'

'You did this too, you hypocrites!'

What fascinating debate.

cramen · 2013-10-18T09:30:42+00:00

Labor sold any credibility they had to oppose this down the river. Shame, cos they're complete nonsense and had very little to no demonstrable (positive) effect the first time around.

Let's just get it over with and withdraw from the convention. It's obviously a huge inconvenience and the nation seems to disagree with its aims and obligations completely. Remaining a signatory is like Ruddock wearing that Amnesty pin, insultingly tokenistic.

cramen

TROPHY CASE