Nobody Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 I am a bit surprised that this hasn't been discussed on this site yet. Greens move to ban Melbourne City Flights - Australian Flying It would affect flights from Moorabbin along the coast to the north west as well as scenic flight over the city. Hopefully it doesn't get passed.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Well, Nobody is talking about it now...... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 you voted for them i bloody well didn't neil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 I am a bit surprised that this hasn't been discussed on this site yet.Greens move to ban Melbourne City Flights - Australian Flying It would affect flights from Moorabbin along the coast to the north west as well as scenic flight over the city. Hopefully it doesn't get passed.... The proposed legislation goes much further than that. It appoints an Aviation Noise Ombudsman and a Community Advocate whose jobs revolve around facilitating complaints from people who dislike aircraft noise. Bit scary pondering what trade-offs might occur between the Libs and the Greens after the Backpacker Tax debacle in which the Libs agreed to spend another $100m on environmental stuff without even blinking. Kaz 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted December 1, 2016 Author Share Posted December 1, 2016 Kaz, I hope RAAus, AOPA, SAAA and all the other bodies can get organised with a coherent voice to stop this one. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Typical Adam Ban-It. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Bit scary pondering what trade-offs might occur between the Libs and the Greens after the Backpacker Tax debacle in which the Libs agreed to spend another $100m on environmental stuff without even blinking. Kaz Well firstly Kaz the ridiculous blind environmental spending budget has actually come way down under the Libs so it's a bit nonsensical for Party comparisons, but I take your point and fully agree with it otherwise. The blind spending budget to appease the current climate change radicals to avoid social media defacing is disgusting and needs to be put into check. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 I am a bit surprised that this hasn't been discussed on this site yet.Greens move to ban Melbourne City Flights - Australian Flying It would affect flights from Moorabbin along the coast to the north west as well as scenic flight over the city. Hopefully it doesn't get passed.... I would be happy to take it seriously when they do something about the thousands of Harleys, sports bikes and Bogan street cars making horrendous noise daily. Not the banning of flights per say, but noise reduction solutions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 The proposed legislation goes much further than that. It appoints an Aviation Noise Ombudsman and a Community Advocate whose jobs revolve around facilitating complaints from people who dislike aircraft noise.Bit scary pondering what trade-offs might occur between the Libs and the Greens after the Backpacker Tax debacle in which the Libs agreed to spend another $100m on environmental stuff without even blinking. Kaz One way to fix this is to live under a flight path (1500 feet) then you will never be bothered by those pesky little planes. $100 mill. Not very much when you look at the land degradation in, say, the Murray-Darling Basin. The Country Party has been bribing and mugging the Liberals for years but, usually, behind closed doors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Bit scary pondering what trade-offs might occur between the Libs and the Greens after the Backpacker Tax debacle in which the Libs agreed to spend another $100m on environmental stuff without even blinking. Kaz I hope the Greens screwed them to the wall on it and won substantial trade-offs. I was shocked that they caved in to the 15% when 13% was on the table, all the LNP had to do was swallow their pride and accept it. It's more like 25% anyway given they're also clawing back 95% of their super. And every LNP statement about it is an outright lie saying backpackers are getting away with paying less tax than Australians. Simple maths. Australians pay $0 tax on the first $18,200 then 19% to $37,000, then 32.5% up to $87,000. If the entirely sensible Lambie proposal (I can't believe those words just came out, but true) - of 10.5% tax from the first dollar was accepted, how much would a backpacker have to earn to pay "less tax" than an Australian? Answer is about $38,423. How many backpackers come over for a holiday and earn more than $38k picking fruit? And if that's what they were worried about, why didn't they just match their tax rate to Australian's from that point on? Then they'd never earn more. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David2ayo Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 I had the pleasure of being the 'ballboy' for a tennis game near Power Street Melbourne last Sunday morning. There were probably about 10 light aircraft passing by in the hour, none of which (to me) were especially loud, even considering the horrendous reflective design of the apartment buildings. The resident dogs were noisier! A non-issue for a publicity seeking bunch of political wannabees! The scary things? (from the article) "Airservices to be forced to review any flight path if requested to do so by any person effected by the flight path". Now, there's an open opportunity to cause trouble. "According the explanatory memoradum accompanying the exposure draft, the amendment has no financial impact." Except to the reduction of legitimate services by Airservices Australia, the cost of compliance by anyone with a need to overfly the city, loss of revenue to tourist flight operators, etc etc. What planet do these drongos live on? My daughter lives at Newport, where internationals turn final for 34 at Tullamarine. Noise levels there are similar above ambient to the city - not (to me) a problem. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Hinch was the only one with a sensible idea, drop it until after the season so the darn stuff can be picked. Once again egos, and I mean all of them, taking precedent over real world circumstance. Many don't understand just how important backpacking pickers are to our Farmers and the economy. With the little they earn, that they spend most of it again here in Oz traveling, and with the cost of collecting their minute taxes, I say no tax at all which would be inline with the tax threshold anyway. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 One way to fix this is to live under a flight path (1500 feet) then you will never be bothered by those pesky little planes.$100 mill. Not very much when you look at the land degradation in, say, the Murray-Darling Basin. The Country Party has been bribing and mugging the Liberals for years but, usually, behind closed doors. I live on short final for 18 at Shepparton and we have a Citation lives here, 3 or 4 aeromedical services each day, firefighting helicopter, 2 flying training schools, and lots of light aircraft. And I still look up every time one goes by. $100 million would sustain the many Community Legal Services providing free assistance to our most disadvantaged community members that are now struggling because the Commonwealth savagely cut its legal aid funding citing budget problems. Yet they found this sum out of the blue in less than 12 hours rather than have Labor vote with them. Politics is screwed! And I absolutely understand how important the backpacker tax issue is because I live in the largest fruit growing area in the country and many of my clients also pick fruit as seasonal workers. Why did the Government originally decide to screw the farmers with a 30% tax and why didn't they see the light and impose it at the same rate as NZ? Ahhhrrrrr! Kaz 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSCBD Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Bloody waste again with what really could use funding. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsam Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 I live on short final for 18 at Shepparton......Kaz G'day Kaz. I've often wondered why that big shed was allowed to be built just off the north threshold of 18! Is the Shepparton council just begging for an unfortunate incident there, so they'll have an excuse to sell off the aerodrome? I've also encountered tall prime movers intentionally loitering slowly on the alley/road close underneath me on short final to 18. They should be told not to linger on the runway alignment if aircraft are on final... Have you encountered this, or was I just unlucky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 And I absolutely understand how important the backpacker tax issue is because I live in the largest fruit growing area in the country Yup, e-SPC-ially in your area! So I can see why you are having a hARD-MOaN-a here. I have 25% Mooroopna blood flowing through my veins. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oksinay Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 May I add noisy engine exhaust brakes to the complaints list? And just how do those bikers get away with straight through exhausts at what must be 110dB plus. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 The subject ( of Melbourne airspace) has been discussed briefly on another Facebook forum and the initiator of it Adam Bandt seems to have dropped it. He had a petition and a page of mistruths and rubbish on his website. Anyway after a very short time the lot was removed off his website. Presumption is that a few truths about the huge effects it would have on Melbourne airspace were pointed out to him - it would force a lot of traffic into controlled airspace causing congestion, cost and risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 The greens dont care, when they can muster a brain between them then they may actually have a sensible thought, untill then lets all hug trees, complain that everyone else is at fault and suck our thumbs. Still, someone actually voted for these brainless idiots. Good luck with the results of your choice..... 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 May I add noisy engine exhaust brakes to the complaints list?And just how do those bikers get away with straight through exhausts at what must be 110dB plus. You'd almost think police are giving them a wink and a nod. A favorite trick is to give it full throttle in busy streets with outdoor diners ear shattering. I've mentioned before that lower powered single engine AC owners/mfrs may be able to argue that compliance with the current transport industry drive by noise levels is acceptable measured from the street, since noise reduces with distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Backpackers tax is nothing to do with the pickers wages, it is all about primary producers getting ripped off by big business controlling the prices. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Backpackers tax is nothing to do with the pickers wages, it is all about primary producers getting ripped off by big business controlling the prices. Not sure how that fits in with it. But a local liberal party member was telling me a few days ago that it's part of broader plan to try and get australians off the dole at least for some of the time. Apparently a recent MP that covers Huon valley in Tassie fronted the minister concerned and expressed major outrage about how his constituent cherry farmers were being driven to the wall. Asked how many pickers he needed in his area and he said 600. The ministers helpers went scurrying off and came back with the info that there are currently 2000 registered new start receivers (not disability, not aged pensioners, not people who could not partake) in that area. Did he really believe that backpackers should be doing the job while Australian dole recipients did nothing for their money? Did he really believe that there were not 600 out that 2000 people who could/should do the work? So part of the push is to have communities pressure their dole recipients to do the work. Apparently there ended the lesson. So rightly or wrongly there seems to be a lot more to this than just backpackers and their tax payments. Anyway a moot point now. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 there are currently 2000 registered new start receivers Well that can't possibly be true because every time i accuse people of dole bludging I am told differently. Obviously those 2000 are not capable of working in some way, inflicted with issues such as Surfboarditish, WinnieBlue paralysis, Playstation cramps ... poor sods, get off their backs. But seriously, while these Pollys converse the Farmer still suffers waiting for a result, lets clear them up the most direct way possible before getting to the other issues. And I might mention that Backpackers who want the work are going to be a whole lot more productive than Dole Bludgers who don't want to be there, IMO. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Well that can't possibly be true because every time i accuse people of dole bludging I am told differently. Obviously those 2000 are not capable of working in some way, inflicted with issues such as Surfboarditish, WinnieBlue paralysis, Playstation cramps ... poor sods, get off their backs.But seriously, while these Pollys converse the Farmer still suffers waiting for a result, lets clear them up the most direct way possible before getting to the other issues. And I might mention that Backpackers who want the work are going to be a whole lot more productive than Dole Bludgers who don't want to be there, IMO. That's my opinion too. I have some friends who grow mangoes up here in North Qld and they have the same feeling. When they get backpackers they get people who work. When they have had people who have been forced to do it after being told they would lose the dole - they have had a high percentage (not all but some) who have gone slow or sabotaged their work so they get sent home. Back onto the dole. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 The greens dont care, when they can muster a brain between them then they may actually have a sensible thought, untill then lets all hug trees, complain that everyone else is at fault and suck our thumbs. Still, someone actually voted for these brainless idiots. Good luck with the results of your choice..... The Greens are the only ones taking climate change seriously. How about you whinge about them when the effects start getting really bad and your party of choice is still propping up the polluters. $100 million would sustain the many Community Legal Services providing free assistance to our most disadvantaged community members that are now struggling because the Commonwealth savagely cut its legal aid funding citing budget problems. Yet they found this sum out of the blue in less than 12 hours rather than have Labor vote with them. Politics is screwed! Yes $100 million would be well spent in a lot of areas. However I think you'll find that in the 2014 budget the LNP actually cut Landcare by $484 million in any case, giving $525 million to the "Green Army" (nothing to do with the Greens, robinsm, you can sit back down) - then they cut $317 million from the "Green Army" in MYEFO. So even if you think the Green Army was an equal value entity to Landcare (which it wasn't), then the net loss was still $266 million to start with, so the $100 million they graciously reinstate now for the Greens to save their sorry ar*ses is a bit of an insult. Might want to ask them what they did with the other $166 mill Kaz - perhaps they could use that for the Community Legal Services - (fat chance!) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now