A progressive company tax

A progressive company tax system which encourages small business and diversity of resources. Potentially based on assets, as this seems to be where the power lies.

I don't think legislation such as the "Birdsville amendment" really help with this. It only seems to make jobs for Lawyers.

By pulling the strings of finance properly we can see better competition in our market over the long term and hence local services for our communities and potentially more sustainable prices.

Anyway, only a suggestion. I sure won't be holding my breath for tax reform that addresses the problems that are presented by market domination.

It seems like a bit of a

It seems like a bit of a stunt... but by the same token I think we should be welcoming any chance we get to have some input into the process.

In particular, this is probably a good opportunity for Greens members to try and get a message across to the government in relation to the importance of public health and education funding.

My input would be the

My input would be the following:
- reduce personal taxation rates to reduce the excessive csah at the disposal of governments;
- change the process of working with indigenous peoples, by working with them in order to improve their lives and living conditions by appointing community based facilitators who are outcomes focussed to listen to indigenous people and support them to remain associated with their traditional lands, but assist them to regain their self-respect and the respect of elders, and to work through and communicate their real needs, and to reduce dependence on alcohol, and other substances that lead to abuse;
- in order to empower people of all ages so that they learn that they have rights, and start to reduce all manner of abuses, especially against children, pass legislation that assures all Australians, especially young people, of their human rights according to International Human Rights Law as ratified by successive Australian governments, coupled with funding for an appropriately resourced human rights focussed Australian Children's Commission backed up be competent Courts and a resourced increased judiciary which can hear complaints about violations of human rights that can impose remedies and consequences on those who violate human rights how ever and where ever they occur, and finally, extend the role and funding of HREOC to oversee and advise on all human rights legislation be far more visible and involved in disseminating information about human rights;
- spend far more money on environmental rehabilitation, management and repair;
- spend money on paying landowners, especially rural landowners to purchase, plant and manage native, especially indigenous, tree species in belts or in large scale plantings on their land that has diminished viability in terms of food production;
- spend money on large scale reforestation projects, through funding seed collection, propagation, ground preparation, planting, mulching and management over a timescale of some 20 years in order that millions of trees are planted and managed to ensure high survival rates, with the government reporting real data about the success and results of their projects;
- creating an environmental supporters group that will excite and interest Australians to spend their time on holidays, planting trees and maintaining them, and also young adults in their gap year, or for those in mainstream education as credits towards courses by assisting in such projects;
- increasing and supplementing funds available through the Envirofund scheme (our worthwhile project in the upper Mary River, SEQld catchment didn't receive funding in the last round, despite significant voluntary input) because, I assume, there was more competition for funded projects that the funds available would allow;
- financially encourage farmers to convert marginal arable land to farm forestry, with a return on the public investment at the time of harvesting
- save money by enabling new not for profit, community based independent schools that are self-funded
- financially support the conversion of farms that only grow cows to be converted into organic farms for growing vegetables and fruit to increase the sustainable supply of good food in areas close to where consumers live to reduce transportation, increase nutritional benefits, and to offset the negative effects on some areas of climate change and over production.

There's probably more that I could think when time is available.

These are all fantastic

These are all fantastic suggestions - please keep them coming, and we'll make sure they're fed straight back to Swan, as he requested.

Hi, Irrespective of Labor's

Hi,

Irrespective of Labor's election policy, I still believe that they made a wrong decision to retain a low tax free income threshold. Retaining such a level discourages people from taking up work. Irregardless of whatever anyone thought of the Coalition, I think that more people are encouraged to work, even if in part time / casual jobs, if they know that a chunk of the income is being sliced off to be paid in personal income tax. After all, everyone pays a share of taxation with the impost of GST. Therefore, it's not a matter of some people not contributing to taxation revenue. I would suggest that the tax free threshold for income should rise to at least $15,000, or better still $20,000, from July 1, 2008.

With issues of housing affordability high on Labor's agenda, the government ought to revisit the issue, Australia wide, of multiple occupancy, group titles, and community titles. There is piecemeal adoption of these means of co-owning land. And yet, they represent excellent methods by which land can have both higher densities of people with small housing footprints in clusters, with the maximum use of open space and shared ownership / stewardship of areas that can be set aside and managed and enhanced for environmental and organic agriculture / community gardens and recreation. With careful planning these provide answers to unnecessary, sprawling suburbs springing up on the periphery of cities without the services needed to sustain the needs of the people. Integral to these developments would be alternative power solutions, grey water recycling and irrigation, roof run off water collection and storage, tree planting and maintenance, etc. Further, there ought to be a return to encouraging and financing people in village / community developments to become involved to the greatest possible extent in the construction of their sustainable, solar passive housing that have small building footprints on the land. For some reason political parties have shunned these sorts of sustainable, living and working environments in favour of large scale, so called master planned communities with their high infrastructure costs and excessively high, unaffordable land and or house and land packages. There is now far more expertise in these areas at a community level, why not use them and encourage far more personal and collective responsibility for their land, housing and community needs.

Global warming is the

Global warming is the central fact of all our lives. Australia must act now to attempt to limit it, and to start to mitigate it. Swan must put BILLIONS into research and into re-jigging our communities so that they can be self-sustaining. He doesn't even know we are living in a world on the edge of chaos, because like far too many parliamentarians he doesn't live in the real world. He must put money into public transport infrastructure, into making our cities bike- and walker- friendly, into encouraging people to grow as much as possible of their own food and into ensuring that fertile land in and around our cities comes back into food production. He must make it possible for Australians to move towards being independent of the power and water infrastructure - which depend on resources we are unlikely to continue to have at our disposal. We aren't talking about going back to primitive society here, we're talking about emulating an Australia that is only two generations or so away from us: many of us have had some experience of this kind of life.

National Broadband Network and Telstra

My name is Gary Looney, a farmer from Menindee NSW that tried to move from a water reliant agricultural business growing vegetable and apricots to a sustainable business on line that would involve helping fellow outback residents through drought related issues.

My take on the past and future from a personal prospective:
John Howard was no Robin Hood when he stole Telstra from the many and sold it to the few that could afford to buy shares.
It is rich that Mr. Minchin can now take the populist high moral ground claiming Telstra should not be broken up and unfortunately Kevin Rudd hasn’t a reply, it is through no fault of his own that funds have dissolved reducing the possibilities!
There is now no easy answer, the previous Government failed to leave its options open in regards to network access or planning for broader population revenue through long term infrastructure!
Both Governments greed based ignorance towards the obvious limitations to self-regulation will only be realised when the top end of town start to suffer on an individual level, the resultant extent of divide at this point will be extreme and lasting!
I think even in the face of a harder road we need to break Telstra up!

On my website (Put online through public computer via USB) I describe unfair treatment by a Telecommunications Company that denied liability for resultant disadvantage caused, leaving me powerless to have the truth acknowledged.

Initially I thought the company would apologise unreservedly with admission of error and compensate my loss, but found instead the response was to fight virulently with denial.

The average person is no match for the legal resources and assumption of credibility such Companies have. I disconnected all services in 2006 having no phone or Internet since!

All documentation has been put on line at:

http://www.broadband.notice.com.au

I have provided evidence to the ACCC, Liberal and Labor party showing in detail how Telstra with the help of the TIO has covered up there immoral actions against me, this is in black and white to the extent that within their own submission material and assessment of, there are serious contradictions suggesting even to a layman with average comprehension skills that these organisation worked together to achieve a pro-Telstra response and hide liability! Complexly altering the facts that were in breach of the Trade Practices Act and failing acceptable moral standards.

Accordingly the TIO's findings are knowingly based on lies and manipulation showing what we in the real-world have known all along, that the TIO is not independent of Telstra (being their initial founder with Optus) nor is the TIO non-bias, fair or credible and accordingly neither can their judgement be!

The ACCC assessment of my case is also erroneous as it did not recognise the facts I state above and there-for is based on a premise that Telstra and the TIO have behaved in a fair, acceptable manner! Additionally their written assessment has errors of comprehension which contradict easily recognised facts when referenced against available provided information; accordingly the pro-Telstra/TIO assessment findings of the ACCC cannot be accurate or treated as credible!

Telstra cannot be Trusted to treat me fairly as shown, nor could it be expected of me to Trust Telstra in any future dealings and because of this I have been disadvantaged for over two years going without phone or Internet, Telstra owns the only infrastructure in our exchange and copper connection would be the only viable option in both price and bandwidth to start a business I had planned in 2006 to move from my then water reliant agriculture for a sustainable future income!

This shows just how much we can trust Government and authorities to protect the average person, if you cannot afford to protect your self against such powerful people then you evidently forgo the right to lawful existence

Regards Gary Looney

Menindee NSW 2879