Australian fuel efficiency standards aimed at cutting petrol bills, 'catching up' with US

[whynot]

The Australian
10:30PM MARCH 12, 2024
Motoring body’s reality plug for Chris Bowen’s ‘go electric’ plan
By GEOFF CHAMBERS
CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
and JOE KELLY
NATIONAL AFFAIRS EDITOR

Half of the new utes and light commercial vehicles sold by 2029 would need to be electric to meet Labor’s fuel efficiency standards and new incentives to shift more motorists away from petrol and diesel will likely fail, according to new industry modelling.

As the Greens threaten to scuttle Labor’s fuel efficiency standards, the nation’s peak motoring body on Wednesday will attack the Albanese government for failing to negotiate a more realistic new vehicle emissions standard, warning Labor’s model would “benefit some consumers and impose costs on others”.

In a major intervention following weeks of stoushes between Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen, the Coalition, car dealers and manufacturers, the Australian Automobile Association rejects Labor’s claims that the NVES will replicate existing US regulations.

With Anthony Albanese seeking to legislate the fuel standards by July, ahead of the scheme starting next year, the Greens have warned they will oppose the NVES if the government strikes a deal with the Coalition to secure the passage of changes to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax.

Amid growing internal pressure on Mr Bowen over his failure to sell the plan, which the government needs to achieve its 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030, AAA chief executive Michael Bradley called on the government to release its $785,000 modelling and be more transparent about the impacts on *vehicle types, choice and prices.

The AAA, representing *motoring clubs with 9.3 million members including the RACQ, NRMA and RACV, has warned the government that “a poorly designed standard and overly stringent targets will deliver bad outcomes for both consumers and the environment”.

Economic modelling by The Centre for International Economics, commissioned by the AAA, found the government’s preferred model would require more than 40 per cent of new passenger vehicles and about 50 per cent of new light commercial vehicles to be electric vehicles in 2029. The AAA’s submission to government said motoring clubs supported a fuel efficiency standard but believed the government had not demonstrated how it would balance “ambition and achievability” under its NVES.

Based on previous polling of more than 3000 Australians, CIE found that electric passenger cars would need to be $30,800 cheaper than their conventional equivalents to create incentives to take up electric vehicles to the level *required under the government’s model.

Assessing consumer preferences and sentiment over availability of charging stations, running costs, range, subsidies, taxes, towing capacity and other behavioural factors, CIE found that larger electric utes and light commercial vehicles would need to be $142,300 cheaper. Electric SUVs would need to be $47,200 cheaper.

Under the government’s preferred model, to be finalised with industry consultation ahead of the scheme becoming active in 2025, carmakers will have to bring down the average carbon output of their stock sold into Australia. Labor’s goal is to achieve a 60 per cent reduction in average new car emissions by 2029.

This will require companies such as Ford, Hyundai, MG, Nissan, Holden and Toyota to sell increasingly more electric cars and hybrids in Australia to offset emissions from their petrol fleet, effectively making it harder to buy a new petrol car over time. It will also encourage car companies to produce petrol cars that are more efficient.

There will be a credit-trading system under the standards, with suppliers who beat the targets able to trade credits with those who fall short. Car makers will be fined about $100 per gram of carbon over which their fleet exceeds the threshold.

The Motor Trades Association of Australia has compiled a list of cars that will struggle to survive the imposition of the new vehicle efficiency standards.

It showed the Ford Ranger, Australia’s top selling car last year, and the Isuzu D-Max, the third highest selling car, sat atop the list. The MTAA warned “not every car company is going to make it”.

The CIE modelling suggested that compliance with the government’s preferred model would require “very dramatic changes to Australia’s passenger and light commercial fleets”.

The AAA submission said the LDV eT60 was currently the only electric ute available in Australia and 15 of these vehicles were sold in the fourth quarter of last year.

After The Australian previously debunked comments by Mr Albanese and Mr Bowen that the Australian fuel efficiency standard scheme would replicate the US model by 2028, the AAA also questioned the claim.

It said the US excluded *heavier pick-up trucks, did not lock in targets beyond 2026 and allowed the pooling and trading of credits.

Mr Bradley said regulations to modernise the vehicle fleet would benefit some consumers and impose costs on others.

“The government must be more open about both sides of this equation if it is to garner community support and reduce political division,” Mr Bradley said. “The AAA encourages both sides of politics to work towards implementing an efficiency *standard that is both ambitious and achievable.”

The AAA said it wanted different vehicle buyers to be able to understand the positive and negative impacts of the standard on their future vehicle choices.

“Given the global lack of *affordable and ready alternatives for existing popular vehicles, it is incumbent on the government to provide robust analysis showing how it sees its headline targets for light commercial vehicles being met,” the AAA submission said.

Mr Albanese on Tuesday took aim at the “scare campaign” against his fuel-efficiency policy, arguing it had failed to sway voters at the Dunkley by-election this month, and said he would “stand up for Australia’s national interest”.

With the Coalition rejecting Labor’s current model, Greens leader Adam Bandt wrote to Mr Albanese on Monday warning the minor party would use legislation for the NVES as a ransom to block a major party deal to *secure passage of the PRRT.

Mr Bandt said the Greens would only support the car pollution reduction scheme if Labor scrapped key parts of separate legislation before the parliament aimed at simplifying offshore oil and gas approvals processes.

He told Mr Albanese the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment contained provisions that would weaken environmental protection laws and “financially benefit Santos”.

Mr Bandt said the emissions reductions achieved by Labor’s new car pollution standards by 2050 would be obliterated by the extra pollution released by *Santos’s Barossa gas project – if it proceeded.

[Sprintey]

There's something in there for everyone, weeks of stoushes, ALP vs Coalition vs Industry body vs ALP vs Greens (wha?) vs NRMA vs electric vehicle lobby vs RACV vs Bowen vs different economic modeling agencies

If the Greens torpedo it, then Coalition and industry body wins (wha?), if it goes ahead we get toward Net Zero and then immediately don't as we import another 700,000 people whose CO2 outputs then heighten to our average levels as of surburban sprawl requiring cars + flatscreen lifestyle...

Coalition could have a field day with 'don't let them take our (Thai) utes!'

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by whynot

As the Greens threaten to scuttle Labor’s fuel efficiency standards, the nation’s peak motoring body on Wednesday will attack the Albanese government for failing to negotiate a more realistic new vehicle emissions standard, warning Labor’s model would “benefit some consumers and impose costs on others”.

ummmm, isn't that exactly the point? As I said in a previous post, and just like the carbon tax - the only way to incentivise people into lower emission cars is through the pocket.

[ozrunner]

"This will require companies such as Ford, Hyundai, MG, Nissan, Holden and Toyota to sell increasingly more electric cars and hybrids in Australia to offset emissions from their petrol fleet"

Whose this Holden company ?? Typical Oz reporting.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

There's something in there for everyone, weeks of stoushes, ALP vs Coalition vs Industry body vs ALP vs Greens (wha?) vs NRMA vs electric vehicle lobby vs RACV vs Bowen vs different economic modeling agencies

If the Greens torpedo it, then Coalition and industry body wins (wha?), if it goes ahead we get toward Net Zero and then immediately don't as we import another 700,000 people whose CO2 outputs then heighten to our average levels as of surburban sprawl requiring cars + flatscreen lifestyle...

Coalition could have a field day with 'don't let them take our (Thai) utes!'

I love the hypocrisy from The Greens,

They want better outcomes for the environment then when the government tries to implement something that the Greens want they threaten to torpedo it if they don't get their way on something unrelated to the issue at hand.

I understand why they do it, if you want legislation through parliament then you have to come to the table on this other thing - but sinking legislation that benefits the environment without proposing amendments or an alternative solution is a bit hypocritical when you market yourself as the political party that cares about the environment.

Again, it just proves my point that just because they're a minority it doesn't mean that they don't hold disproportionate power compared to their numbers and they wield significant ability to implement their ideas.

We live in interesting times, we've all got front row tickets to this shitshow rollercoaster but I want to hop off

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

I love the hypocrisy from The Greens,

They want better outcomes for the environment then when the government tries to implement something that the Greens want they threaten to torpedo it if they don't get their way on something unrelated to the issue at hand.

I understand why they do it, if you want legislation through parliament then you have to come to the table on this other thing - but sinking legislation that benefits the environment without proposing amendments or an alternative solution is a bit hypocritical when you market yourself as the political party that cares about the environment.

Again, it just proves my point that just because they're a minority it doesn't mean that they don't hold disproportionate power compared to their numbers and they wield significant ability to implement their ideas.

We live in interesting times, we've all got front row tickets to this shitshow rollercoaster but I want to hop off

We need to drop preferential voting...too many fringe MP's/Senators etc that have the balance of power but nowhere near the number of voters behind them to equate their decision-making control with the representation of the majority.

Not car related but an Animal First member together with one or two other independents elected by preferences only, had the balance of power when the vote was made for an injecting room near a primary school in an inner city suburb and yet this politician doesn't live anywhere near the affected area, in fact in a rural region, came into parliament on a one cause platform, yet can control the lives of the vast majority that DIDN'T vote for her.

On reading some of the submissions from Toyota and now Nissan which includes a request to include ADR reform (as in removal) hopefully the fed government makes a more informed and more widely accepted final decision.

[FTE217]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

I love the hypocrisy from The Greens,

They want better outcomes for the environment then when the government tries to implement something that the Greens want they threaten to torpedo it if they don't get their way on something unrelated to the issue at hand.

I understand why they do it, if you want legislation through parliament then you have to come to the table on this other thing - but sinking legislation that benefits the environment without proposing amendments or an alternative solution is a bit hypocritical when you market yourself as the political party that cares about the environment.

Again, it just proves my point that just because they're a minority it doesn't mean that they don't hold disproportionate power compared to their numbers and they wield significant ability to implement their ideas.

We live in interesting times, we've all got front row tickets to this shitshow rollercoaster but I want to hop off

In part this is why I try to get through my millinial and gen z kids on.
Bugga wasting your vote on these fringe useless small parties incl the green, luckily they have learnt and get it yet they get influence from their friends/coherts.
Its a waste of time and you'll pay for it more and more in the future till its too late to change.
Dr Smith more good points I concur.
Even though the 2 leading parties if I can describe them as such are sess pools themselves today voters walking from them has caused alot of what come to us.
It also reduces the accountabilty voters used to have come voting.
Preferences keeps the more idiots in who block changes and more so help one the leading parties get through with a minority.
Its useless leadership and even saying that is a joke.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

We need to drop preferential voting...too many fringe MP's/Senators etc that have the balance of power but nowhere near the number of voters behind them to equate their decision-making control with the representation of the majority.

Not car related but an Animal First member together with one or two other independents elected by preferences only, had the balance of power when the vote was made for an injecting room near a primary school in an inner city suburb and yet this politician doesn't live anywhere near the affected area, in fact in a rural region, came into parliament on a one cause platform, yet can control the lives of the vast majority that DIDN'T vote for her.

On reading some of the submissions from Toyota and now Nissan which includes a request to include ADR reform (as in removal) hopefully the fed government makes a more informed and more widely accepted final decision.

Problem is if you get rid of preferential voting and go to first past the post you end up with the US political system with two even more useless options, keep in mind these days aside from Victoria, and only in our state elections and then even further still, only in our upper house being the glaring exception, we as voters decide where our preferences go by numbering the box so we have full control over where it ends up.

The only state which still uses the 'group voting ticket' is Victoria in our state elections and only for our upper house, where if you vote above the line the party dictates where your vote goes, not you.

You can completely avoid this by simply voting below the line

The reason we are ending up with all these little parties and independents in power is that people are simply voting for other options rather than the two majors in enough numbers to create these situations - its not unique to Australia either where one group doesn't have absolute control.

I think those days are over for Australia, last federal election the majors only got something like in the low 30s on first preference votes, the 'two party preferred' system is simply out of date and no longer applicable for how Australians now vote on election day.

Also its the changing of electorates, not the total number of votes that makes the difference, if you're in a swinging/marginal electorate then you'll get everything and the kitchen sink thrown at you, if you're one of the plebs who lives in a safe seat like Calwell, then you'll get absolutely nothing because they vote like plebs and the major that holds it has a massive margin so they don't need to do anything for these people what so ever, because they win by default all the time, so you can continually take from these people and there's no repercussions.

Try shaft the people in a teal electorate and see what happens, it'll change colours quicker than your bowels after Indian.

If you look at the makeup of Victoria's upper house, the state government can't get legislation through unless they negotiate with all these micro parties, so thats why during COVID if anyone was paying attention, for the state government to get its way they had to meet these little microparties on issues that they thought was important to secure their support to get extensions on lockdowns or legislation through the upper house and all these deals were made.

If the two majors want to stop this situation from occuring then they need to stop being flogs, then they won't be bleeding primary votes like they've been stabbed in the neck.

[ToryMikey]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

We need to drop preferential voting...too many fringe MP's/Senators etc that have the balance of power but nowhere near the number of voters behind them to equate their decision-making control with the representation of the majority.

Not car related but an Animal First member together with one or two other independents elected by preferences only, had the balance of power when the vote was made for an injecting room near a primary school in an inner city suburb and yet this politician doesn't live anywhere near the affected area, in fact in a rural region, came into parliament on a one cause platform, yet can control the lives of the vast majority that DIDN'T vote for her.

On reading some of the submissions from Toyota and now Nissan which includes a request to include ADR reform (as in removal) hopefully the fed government makes a more informed and more widely accepted final decision.

Every Victorian should realise preferential voting is a bit of a joke, particularly Legislative Council group voting tickets. Not sure how unelected Glenn Druery got to have so much influence.

Rod Barton, Fiona Patten and Andy Meddick essentially have full and total control of Victorian legislation. Like you mention, the "safe" injecting room (as someone with a heroin addict uncle I really resent that one) comes to mind, and the 2021 pandemic bill too.

[simon varley]

well I must be in a minority then. I'm glad we have independents. the big two are so full of useless self serving shits it's good to have someone who can use their position to try and force some actual change!

I didn't see too many people complaining here when Ricky Muir was elected with 0.51% of the primary vote

[kevino]

Agreed
In federal politics I think independent David Pocock does a super job.
Jackie Lambie is another goodie
Wilkie Katter another two.

[ToryMikey]

Originally Posted by simon varley

well I must be in a minority then. I'm glad we have independents. the big two are so full of useless self serving shits it's good to have someone who can use their position to try and force some actual change!

I didn't see too many people complaining here when Ricky Muir was elected with 0.51% of the primary vote

Ricky Muir was an Australian senator for Victoria. Completely different voting system.

Edit: For some light entertainment, look up the spat between Ricky Muir and Glenn Druery that happened after Muir was "voted" in, it's pretty funny.

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by ToryMikey

Every Victorian should realise preferential voting is a bit of a joke, particularly Legislative Council group voting tickets. Not sure how unelected Glenn Druery got to have so much influence.

Rod Barton, Fiona Patten and Andy Meddick essentially have full and total control of Victorian legislation. Like you mention, the "safe" injecting room (as someone with a heroin addict uncle I really resent that one) comes to mind, and the 2021 pandemic bill too.

And maybe we should add two terms and you're out...so the dead wood doesn't turn to oil before they resign or finally lose.

[ToryMikey]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

And maybe we should add two terms and you're out...so the dead wood doesn't turn to oil before they resign or finally lose.

Make it three on the federal level (given the usual three year gap between federal elections) and you’re on to a winner.

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by ToryMikey

Ricky Muir was an Australian senator for Victoria. Completely different voting system.

not really, not in the mechanics of it at least. Last person gets their votes reallocated to everyone else

There is no good voting system in the world imo, but we do have one of the better ones. Perhaps there should simply be a cutoff before the votes are preferenced? If you don't get 5% of the primary, then you don't progress?

[Franco Cozzo]

One that flies under the radar is how the political parties endorse and run candidates in local government elections and interfere here too - our friend in Yarra Council with her hate for American utes and Thailand Specials is endorsed by The Greens.

I basically got made 'unwelcome' from a major political party and forced out, because I contested a local council election against their preferred candidate in a **** take, then refused to preference their horse in the race, because they asked me to and I told them to GAGF.

She still won anyway

Her claim to fame is putting out an anti nuclear weapons proliferation policy on behalf of our council, when the grass on the side of the road is up to my shoulders, in a bushfire region. You know, something our council actually has the ability to control.

Last time I checked my local council does not operate any nuclear weapons systems, nor has any influence over US/UK/Russia/China/Iran/India/Pakistan/Israel's governments to get them to throw in the towel on their nuclear weapons.

Under a local council I lead, we will have a submarine base and a fleet of SLBMs, located in Sanatorium Lake for maximum effectiveness.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by simon varley

well I must be in a minority then. I'm glad we have independents. the big two are so full of useless self serving shits it's good to have someone who can use their position to try and force some actual change!

I didn't see too many people complaining here when Ricky Muir was elected with 0.51% of the primary vote

Did not last too long as expected, that speaks for itself with these types, by the way preferential voting has proven to be manipulated and outdated in our voting system, time for a different system to be implemented as politics has gone to the dogs.

[whynot]

Originally Posted by whynot

Sure, it is a political exercise and since the ALP - with support of the Greens - have the numbers in parliament, they can make whatever changes they like. That is the way it works in our democracy. But the ALP shouldn't complain or whinge if the electorate turns and bites back, hard.

And it looks like the political exercise has failed (for now).

The Australian, 24 March 2024
Chris Bowen bows to pressure to lower fuel efficiency standards

Chris Bowen is preparing to lower Australia’s proposed high fuel efficiency standards for petrol vehicles following US President Joe Biden’s big backdown on American standards and pressure from Thailand, Japan and the domestic automotive industry.

Australia’s backdown is likely this week as parliament prepares to break before the May budget sittings and after a secret meeting last Thursday between the Albanese government and local automotive industry representatives.

Senior Labor ministers were concerned during the Dunkley by-election campaign that the proposed standards were “killing” the ALP, which was saved by the tax cuts announced in January.

[Franco Cozzo]

That's what happens when the federal government governs for inner western Sydney

[mick taylor]

Originally Posted by Itsme

Did not last too long as expected, that speaks for itself with these types, by the way preferential voting has proven to be manipulated and outdated in our voting system, time for a different system to be implemented as politics has gone to the dogs.

Preferential voting is a outright scam in fact !
If you have to vote 1 2 3 4 that is corruption in fact, for one may not like 2 3 4 etc but one should always have the right to vote for just 1 period ! or 2 etc as you wish and never ever have to vote 1 2 3 4 that is a cunning game trick that they play on the voters.
What if Hitler or one you totally despised like the Greens was on the card, out of the 4 you must vote for, they are forcing one to give credit to such, when you do not want to at all !

[ToryMikey]

Originally Posted by mick taylor

Preferential voting is a outright scam in fact !
If you have to vote 1 2 3 4 that is corruption in fact, for one may not like 2 3 4 etc but one should always have the right to vote for just 1 period ! or 2 etc as you wish and never ever have to vote 1 2 3 4 that is a cunning game trick that they play on the voters.
What if Hitler or one you totally despised like the Greens was on the card, out of the 4 you must vote for, they are forcing one to give credit to such, when you do not want to at all !

Compulsory preferential voting (or ranked choice voting) is absolutely a scam. However it benefits two left-wing parties that are in an informal coalition with each other. Greens votes overwhelmingly flow to Labor, at a rate that isn't seen at any other time except in Australia's formal coalition.

Queensland used to have optional preferential voting. Of course, as soon as Labor were elected they needed to shore up their majority by introducing compulsory preferential voting - that way, the 90%+ of Greens votes that preference Labor will benefit them. If the Crisafulli government takes power, I hope that sanity prevails and optional preferential voting is reintroduced.

The other major Anglosphere country with a loose informal left-wing coalition is Canada, and surprise surprise, their prime minister has advocated for compulsory ranked choice voting. Thankfully it has not gotten up and they still have first past the post over there.

As an aside - Labor in Queensland have a long history of manipulating the electoral system for their benefit. They abolished the Legislative Council in 1922, as soon as they were able to field a majority in both houses. Of course, this all seems hilarious considering that for years upon years that side of politics bleated about Joh Bjelke-Petersen's supposed "gerrymandering"...while completely ignoring that Labor themselves introduced the apportionment system in the 1940s when they dominated rural areas.

[fatgas]

Originally Posted by ToryMikey

Compulsory preferential voting (or ranked choice voting) is absolutely a scam. However it benefits two left-wing parties that are in an informal coalition with each other. Greens votes overwhelmingly flow to Labor, at a rate that isn't seen at any other time except in Australia's formal coalition.

Queensland used to have optional preferential voting. Of course, as soon as Labor were elected they needed to shore up their majority by introducing compulsory preferential voting - that way, the 90%+ of Greens votes that preference Labor will benefit them. If the Crisafulli government takes power, I hope that sanity prevails and optional preferential voting is reintroduced.

The other major Anglosphere country with a loose informal left-wing coalition is Canada, and surprise surprise, their prime minister has advocated for compulsory ranked choice voting. Thankfully it has not gotten up and they still have first past the post over there.

As an aside - Labor in Queensland have a long history of manipulating the electoral system for their benefit. They abolished the Legislative Council in 1922, as soon as they were able to field a majority in both houses. Of course, this all seems hilarious considering that for years upon years that side of politics bleated about Joh Bjelke-Petersen's supposed "gerrymandering"...while completely ignoring that Labor themselves introduced the apportionment system in the 1940s when they dominated rural areas.

Queensland is Australia red headed stepson.

[ToryMikey]

Originally Posted by fatgas

Queensland is Australia red headed stepson.

That may be true Mr. Gas but what does that make Victoria? The blue haired step-they/them?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by ToryMikey

Compulsory preferential voting (or ranked choice voting) is absolutely a scam. However it benefits two left-wing parties that are in an informal coalition with each other. Greens votes overwhelmingly flow to Labor, at a rate that isn't seen at any other time except in Australia's formal coalition.

Queensland used to have optional preferential voting. Of course, as soon as Labor were elected they needed to shore up their majority by introducing compulsory preferential voting - that way, the 90%+ of Greens votes that preference Labor will benefit them. If the Crisafulli government takes power, I hope that sanity prevails and optional preferential voting is reintroduced.

The other major Anglosphere country with a loose informal left-wing coalition is Canada, and surprise surprise, their prime minister has advocated for compulsory ranked choice voting. Thankfully it has not gotten up and they still have first past the post over there.

As an aside - Labor in Queensland have a long history of manipulating the electoral system for their benefit. They abolished the Legislative Council in 1922, as soon as they were able to field a majority in both houses. Of course, this all seems hilarious considering that for years upon years that side of politics bleated about Joh Bjelke-Petersen's supposed "gerrymandering"...while completely ignoring that Labor themselves introduced the apportionment system in the 1940s when they dominated rural areas.

Further context around that required though

It was axed because it was an un-elected house of parliament, who has the final say on any legislation introduced by the legislative assembly, entirely appointed by their governor, rather than appointed by the vote of Queenslanders, and it was usually given to people from wealthy families, and half the people never turned up anyway.

If people think Victoria's upper house is an absolute clown show, imagine what it would be like if we didn't even have a say and it was appointed by our governor (who is chosen by our premier)

I'd rather have the upper house, but if we can't elect who sits in it then they can GAGF and it can disappear like QLD.

Though if I was Victoria's premier you bet your *** I'd be pushing for QLD's old legislative council, first thing I'd do is pick a governor on the proviso they stack the upper house with people who will do what I say.

Governor is a pretty sweet gig, you get paid $485,000/year to do ceremonial shit, get an office and staff, a residence in amongst Kings Domain and no one knows who you are or what you actually do.

[ToryMikey]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Further context around that required though

It was axed because it was an un-elected house of parliament, who has the final say on any legislation introduced by the legislative assembly, entirely appointed by their governor, rather than appointed by the vote of Queenslanders, and it was usually given to people from wealthy families, and half the people never turned up anyway.

If people think Victoria's upper house is an absolute clown show, imagine what it would be like if we didn't even have a say and it was appointed by our governor (who is chosen by our premier)

I'd rather have the upper house, but if we can't elect who sits in it then they can GAGF and it can disappear like QLD.

Though if I was Victoria's premier you bet your *** I'd be pushing for QLD's old legislative council, first thing I'd do is pick a governor on the proviso they stack the upper house with people who will do what I say.

Governor is a pretty sweet gig, you get paid $485,000/year to do ceremonial shit, get an office and staff, a residence in amongst Kings Domain and no one knows who you are or what you actually do.

Fair enough - though if the government of the day was really interested in fairness, why not change the system from one of appointed representatives to elected members? My home state of Victoria first had a Legislative Council which was split between appointed and elected members, but then transitioned to being a wholly elected chamber before Federation. Queensland was the last holdout at the time, by the 1920s I believe all other Legislative Councils had elected members.

Of course, the issue would be that even elected members may vote contrary to the Assembly's wishes...

They actually did it in a really nasty way, they first tried to abolish by referendum but that was resoundingly voted against. Then they increased the size of the chamber by 14, and what do you know, all the appointments were Labor members and they all happened to vote themselves out of existence a moment later

[fatgas]

Originally Posted by ToryMikey

That may be true Mr. Gas but what does that make Victoria? The blue haired step-they/them?

We don't talk about Victoria, it's why it's in the basement and fed fish heads every other week.

[Sprintey]

https://www.carsales.com.au/editoria...andard-145199/

"Government waters down fuel efficiency standard
Broad support for revised New Vehicle Efficiency Standard after car industry wins concessions for large diesel-powered SUVs and utes
Bowing to pressure from Australia’s biggest car-makers and industry lobby groups, the federal government has made crucial concessions with its proposed New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES).

The key concession will see large SUVs held to the same emissions targets as light commercial vehicles (LCVs)."

[FTE217]

Haha too funny and rejoice the egg on face


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sprintey]

It's amusing and now we know officially that ladder on frame SUVs really are light commercial vehicles...

[ToryMikey]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

It's amusing and now we know officially that ladder on frame SUVs really are light commercial vehicles...

Anyone who sits behind the wheel of a Thailand Special knows this.

Bars of soap handle better than an unladen Hoylux Workmate.