How do you propose they kill the public company exactly? At least in Australia, govt. revenue is barely reliant on fossil fuels.
1,010 karma · joined December 20, 2017
How do you propose they kill the public company exactly? At least in Australia, govt. revenue is barely reliant on fossil fuels.
If you then continued on to read the remainder of the article, you would also discover that there was no AI assistance in this research at all.
Needless to say, none of this applies to your server with 15 people in it.
Not that your old stack doesn't still work exactly how you'd expect it to, nothing's changed there.
The government consulted with key stakeholders before the budget? Say it ain't so! The lobbyists in question will be people with a Government Relations role, their whole job is to be the middlemen between the corporation and the government.
The main argument was calling for gas to be taxed more. This completely ignores reality of most gas being under contract until at least 2030, the government could not increase tax on this resource without breaking contracts. Hardly a wise decision. While they could increase it for future contracts, is this really the correct choice? We're trying to transition away from gas and other fossil fuels, why would we instead tie our tax revenue even closer to these resources?
>They went to a local byelection and their candidate was a gas lobbyist they parachuted in from a different electorate.
Yep, pretty tone-deaf. Not really the fault of the federal Labor govt however, this was just a classic WA Labor move, the state most beholden to these interests.
I agree with your other points. Military spending is screwed for either party, we're beholden to the US in this case.