The government has also vowed to strengthen the use of 'use it or lose it' provisions to prevent land banking of onshore petroleum tenements and ensure more gas is brought to market over the coming decade.

Use it or lose it provisions could do with wider use in this country.

Cheap to do, expensive to prove.

Its fair to say its skewed.

The point is, comparisons are useful, but the comparisons that are most valuable are from countries (medical systems) estimated to be around the same level of development, and have a similar societal structure.

Good additions might be NZ, Japan, S.Korea, and Canada. (I'm sure theres others)

A better way to do this would be to take apart the US by State, afterall some US states have as large, or larger, populations than the countries listed. This would help account for the wide variability in State to State care. I suppose the reason they didn't is Federal influence is still large, even in the US, also the infographic would become unwieldy with 50 added lines.

The infographic format is probably too simple for the kind of information its trying to communicate.

A better way, from a US centric perspective, might be to use some sort of vine with bunches of States and comparable countries by their side in their appropriate bunch. Say, and i'm just guessing here, Vermont in a bunch that includes Switzerland, while Mississippi might be in a bunch that includes countries with less successful health outcomes.

Well thats interesting. So we could look at how Switzerland and Germany do things to improve.

Although we should remember in such a complex system nothing is ever as simple as 'change un peu, et voila!'

Incorporate noise muffler noise into hoon laws. Instant motorcycle crushing.

I don't fully get why qld labor are staring down the barrell of electoral wipeout. I understand the part about the way qld gov is set up leads to more of a winner take all scenario. But i don't really see what Labor have failed on so hard to warrant such vehement electoral rejection?

In other words, where'd it all go wrong?

Edit: Or right, depending on your perspective.

I think i'm gona start using 'scum goblin'.

The LA metro? Like, theres a passenger/commuter train in LA?

Changes to liquor policies explained

For those interested in the changes being implemented, below is from the website.

What has changed?

The Director Liquor Licensing (DLL) has reviewed the former suite of 54 liquor licensing policies to reduce duplicated or outdated requirements.

A new, consolidated suite of 14 policies has been introduced that make it easier to do business in Western Australia, helping to promote a vibrant local hospitality and tourism industry.

The core requirements of most policies have remained the same, in line with the Liquor Control Act 1988.

The policies are in effect from 29 August 2024.

Key changes:

• Under 18s can now clear used glasses along with dirty plates as part of the approval for juveniles to be on a licensed premises policy.
• Applicants can use planning documents such as a development approval or occupancy certificate to support their application.
• The entertainment condition policy has been updated to set out which licences the entertainment condition is imposed on.
• Applicable conditions under the extended trading permits (ETPs) policy are less onerous. For example, it is now possible to apply for extra trading hours when a WA-based band is playing rather than only interstate acts; and for extended trading hours to be granted on a Sunday before a gazetted Monday public holiday.
• The fire safety standards for licensed premises policy remain substantially the same, but are more clearly described.
• The harm minimisation plan policy documentation has been streamlined so that only 1 document is needed instead of 3. The description of what applicants are asked to provide is clearer and includes some practices that mitigate risk to assist applicants.
• The lodger’s policy more clearly sets out those requirements, including that a lodger can have 6 adult guests, and licensees can apply for an increase to the number of adult guests when alcohol is being consumed outside of trading hours.
• The occasional licence policy has been updated, more clearly setting out those requirements.
• The old public interest assessment policy has been replaced with a simpler form which allows the applicant to more easily explain why the application is in the public interest.
• The residential premises policy provides updated information on the limited circumstances under which a residence may be a licensed premises.
• The responsible promotion and advertising of alcohol requirements remain substantially the same, including that promotions must not encourage the rapid or excessive consumption of alcohol.
• The security licensing conditions policy explains what factors make an event or premises high risk, and under what circumstances the DLL may relax standard security requirements if there are appropriate harm minimisations strategies in place.
• The special facility licences policy now contains clearer information on the operational requirements of each prescribed type of licence, with outdated restrictions on certain licence types removed.
• The temporary bars policy remains substantially the same but the licensing arrangements are more clearly described.
• The old Producer’s licence policy has been removed. Producers are no longer required to have 1.5 hectares of vines or the ability to produce 5000 bottles of wine per year.

I don't know, I feel like there was some unnecessary derision there.

I like this place because we have discussions, sometimes weeks long, about the subjects, not the users.

Good ideas in this article.

We need to change our practices after the experience of last summer alone, The Big Dry, Joe Fontaine, et al , contijuing what we're doing can only increase more risk for forrest and homes, or environmental collapses followed by increased agricultural hardship.

Missed the next two lines,

Less bike lanes

Free parking

Induced demand

More traffic

You guys turn up to vote in Local Gov elections? I think most of ours are postal. I wonder if that means NSW turnout is better?

How the WA government plans to fix its 'broken' environmental approvals process James Carmody, 14 Dec 2024

We like to believe our societies are a calm, rational place of logical decision makers.

We're actually a rowdy bunch of anachronistic apes, with a chronic case of the hypocrititis.

So Brett Worthington in his weekly politics wrap up has indicated a well put case for the phase out of live sheep export is available on Sussan Ley's website. Yes the same Sussan Ley who is now supporting the farmers in the 'keep the sheep' campaign.

Warning If 'abbatoir' language is too much, this link might be worth a skip for ya.

https://sussanley.com/issue-ending-live-sheep-exports-can-confusing/

Here it is on webarchive. Just in case Ley's office decide their website needs a midnight declutter.

Na, she's already a cross-bencher. Another ~4 years on her term. She'd have to do something pretty drastic to even get censured.

And when you've got kooky ol'Malcolm Roberts next to her sounding like he's about as high as the ISS everytime he stands to speak, i think Payman will be fine.

That was hard to watch. I must be old, or that was super cringey. Or both, probably both.

Lefty friendly, i would assume your interests would align with trying to help the common person, and climate change adaptation.

Your stated experience, and interests sound varied, and present you as a highly active person.

Combining these things in my mind i instantly thought you should get into food system adaptation for a warmer more volatile world. Where people could really suffer horrendously with climate change is if food production systems break down. We need smart people, willing to try new approaches in that system. Farming where i'm from is bed of roses, and a lot of the skills you listed farmers here would likely use, so its probably the same/similar elsewhere.

So specifically i's thinking organic farming, or permaculture, or perhaps a more scientific route such as propagation of new tougher varietals.

Logistical needs are also important, the amount of energy used to transport food must be immense and so that could be an avenue you could go down marrying your comments about mechanical engineering to the idea of improving the worlds food production systems.

Good luck with your ongoing career, whatever you decide.

Khan Academy

An acquaintance once landed a contract to clear up a gold mine site after shut down. He bid super low for it, the only condition he stipulated was it be left in the condition in which he had inspected it, something like that.

The operator immediately gave him the contract, and he immediately gathered up all the dust from conveyor belts etc sifted through it, separated all the left over gold inside and sold it.

Set him up in a big way, the idiot operator tried to take him to court to claim the gold as theirs, with no success.

So yeah, sometimes there truly is gold in that there dust.

Thats how it seems to me.

Maybe theres a genuine reason onshore abbatoirs for export haven't got up. If there is, the farmers need to explain why.

You never know, the rest of the community could be in a position to help if communication of a problem like that is better.

I think once ECU goes into the Yagan square area, that whole project will start to make sense.

Its problem now is they've installed the ancilliary buinesses/infrastructure without the accompanying destination (the university), so it feels like this odd mix of destination and thoroughfare that doesn't really work.

Chicken alfredo fettuccine. Sauce turned out lovely, but i wish there was more.

Where was all this fundraising in the last ten odd years to set up an onshore abattoir for the export market?

Farmers are the ones who need to listen to other community members more. There has been a distinct uncomfortable community feeling about the conditions these animals are sent into. Its not a 'small group of noisy activists' as farmers are dismissively stating.

What's stopping sheep farmers banding together and opening onshore abbatoirs if they feel so strongly about keeping an sheep export industry?

Oh yeah, just looked up where Emu was, forgot about that land reclamation thing.

Hope they remember it's a floodplain and don't put anything too heavy on it like they did with the sinking exhibition centre

Haha, good point!

I think i've come around to the idea a little more since i last posted on this plan,

1. The riverfront could be designed as a green corridor between Heirisson Island and Kings Park. It would act to cool a large part of the city, and also be great for the city's bird life. Possibly other small marsupials as well, if the design was thoughtful enough.

2. There were a number of historical landmarks along the waterfront, I believe the original Emu and Swan Breweries were around that area, or maybe nearer Elizabeth Quay. Reconstructions of these could be a cool way to reconnect Perth to its early history, as 'Perth', that we cast aside.

That numbat enclosure is so cool as well, i like how you can go all the way in, or just be passing on the path round the back and get a good view.

The numbats are also so much smaller than i ever imagined.

Ah, i don't get it. This ones on a new post.

Hey Quokka i don't know when you sent this message, but i made this comment 2 months ago, and i've only just received your comment. You weren't ignored, on my end i simply never saw both your comments, i noticed another one on another thread, until just now.

Possibly a time lag in federation? Aussie Zone has that issue with another server, maybe with some mastodon instances as well.

Your first paragraph about the politics and news media, yeah generally agree with.

The point about ethics in the news media i see as part of the problem surrounding the Australian Press Council and their principle funders being the organisations they supposedly investigate. Its an ethics system set up to generate conflicts of interest. The media have a watch dog that's more like a chew toy.

We are calling on Minister Farrell to legislate a ban on the use of deepfakes in elections before the next federal election. From the change.org petition.

Seems that Pocock is referring to AI deepfakes' use in elections. Maybe i haven't read the parts your referring to?

While i see no actual wording because i've not seen an example of a proposed legislation, I would assume that its wording would be vague enough to potentially catch many people, likely including individual citizens. Aus courts would, as they always try to, sort out the chaff through testing intent of parties accused of using deepfakes. But thats me speculating, and i see nothing other than the quote above to suggest how far they'd go, so "in elections"?.

Your last paragraph is the part i disagree with you on. Its not pissing in the wind to regulate a large company, in fact its a necessity for smaller countries like Australia.

Like you say, targeting these large tech companies makes sense, and like the news media bargaining showed, it can be done. Whatever we think about that particular issue, the tech companies played the governments game. Large countries can find all sorts of excuses to not find consensus, and sometimes need that leading example, and in telecommunications cases it can't really be a US State that takes the lead, like they can on other issues, but a separate country. I think its due to telecommunications law being federal jurisdiction.

I'm not necessarily advocating it. I put the link up because its a useful addition for a post like this.

In saying that the idea that bans don't work takes the 'war on drugs/prohibition' approaches out of context.

1. I'm writing this from memory (of reading, not experience :p ) because i don't have time to go and reread it all so apologies if details are wrong, the essence should be there though,

Prohibition was enforced on the population by ideological puritans in power at the time. It seems no clear popular support backed or accepted the prohibition's rationale and is a driving reason why it was so hard to maintain and dropped.

'War on drugs' ideas should be dropped because the evidence shows the American public have not benefited from the policy position, and in fact the 'War on Drugs' has likely increased the costs and harms associated with the drugs trade rather than diminished them. So, while we can say the 'War on Drugs' enjoyed popular support, in contrast to Prohibtion, the health, economic, violence, and consumption patterns have all trended negative against the policy over the period, meaning the policy has failed in its stated objective and needs changing.

The point of these two examples being referred to when considering other bans isn't to sit on the ideological plane of libertarians and shout "All bans are bad, you won't tread on me." But to consider the negative implications of a proposed ban and how its reality could differ from the vision, and adjust accordingly.

2. There are enforced bans throughout society, think driving without a seatbelt, driving on the wrong side of the road, electrician sign offs, work with and manufacture of radioactive materials, essentially anything the enforceabke by the police and courts you can argue is a 'banned practice'.

3. A ban targeting political party practices is far more enforceable than population wide bans, its a smaller 'market', with known players, to regulate. I beleive Lobby groups in Aus also have to identify themselves when they put out attack ads.

All that said, if a ban was implemented it doesn't stop AI use in political advertising, but it does set the tone, and that means a lot. We as a society can't stop murders, but we can build up barriers against their use as a legitimate tool of pursuing ones goals.

Ban AI in elections petition at chnage.org

I think the random shelf stocker was behind a milk crate desk, so all very official. :P

https://aussie.zone/u/philip this is my favourite post of the week, please update as details emerge. I want to know how the saga unfolds. Will the ACCC get involved, will Head Office respond, will https://aussie.zone/u/philip go nuclear contacting their local Parliamentary Representative.

Thanks for tldr. I really didn't want to read that.