'Dat Karl Stefanovic rant. :cool:

So now we've got a Liberal campaign worker threatening the daughter of a Labor MP with a stanley knife.

Fuck, better not vote Liberal then :lol: ;)

Behind schedule is a result of the extremely long winded Telstra negotiations to start the building in the first place and then Telstra's failure to adequately remedy their pits and pipe for the NBN to use as per their agreement.

Also, being behind schedule is not a reason to stop the build. It has to be done, it will be done eventually, and all stopping it (or replacing it with a far inferior but almost as expensive FTTN build) will do is just delay it even more.

If you want financial information, then please download this file:
http://www.nbnco.com.au/about-us/corporate-plan.html

Or even this one:
http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/media-releases/2013/report-to-parliamentary-joint-committee.pdf

They have provided perfectly detailed costings on the current state of the roll out.

If you had bothered to look for them.



Is that detailed enough for you?

The costs for new developments are even lower.

Don't blame the NBN or Quigley or Albanese for your inability to engage your brain and actually think for yourself.



There is no cost benefit analysis (which in this case would be an extremely flawed way of trying to judge a 50 year project), but there are multiple corporate plans and those plans are updated as the NBN has been built and as shown above you can download and have a look.

The reason it's not in the budget is because it will deliver a rate of return to the Government above the long-term bond rate. The Coalition is taking the exact same stance with their fake NBN, although in their case, they are far more unlikely to actually make that return.

let's sentence them to death then:p

Has probably done Palmer wonders in some regards lol.

-PB

So Hockey admits that they aren't going to have a surplus at all if in power. So what happened to the 'budget emergency'.

Anyone who votes this lot in are fuckwits.

It's only a budget emergency if Labor are in power.

Edited by 433: 6/9/2013 05:32:28 PM

Coalition cuts to aid 'increase risk of hardline Islamists'
Date
September 6, 2013 - 6:12PM

The Coalition's $4.5 billion cuts to foreign aid may take money out of moderate Islamic schools in Indonesia, reducing education quality and potentially increasing the risk of hardline Islam, a local education expert has warned.

And shadow treasurer Joe Hockey's insistence that he was only cutting into growth in the aid budget and not reducing it in real terms is wrong, according to ANU academic Robin Davies.

Mr Hockey said on Thursday the money saved from aid would go into roads in Melbourne and Sydney, but he would not spell out where the savings will fall until he is in government. However Indonesia is Australia's largest aid recipient and is likely to suffer the largest cuts, even though Tony Abbott has said his government would boast a “Jakarta, not Geneva focus” in foreign relations.

The biggest single portion of Australia's aid spending in Indonesia goes to education, particularly to moderate Islamic schools or pesantren, which are attended by millions of children particularly in poor rural areas where the government school system does not reach.

Alissa Wahid, a daughter of former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid who has worked closely alongside the Australian aid program in Islamic schools, said any cuts would damage Australia's national interest.

“The money that's used to improve the quality of these schools, the majority of it comes from Australian aid, so can you imagine what will happen if this budget is taken away?” Ms Wahid said.

“Hardline Islamic groups in Indonesia are fighting for influence through the pesantren, so this would put a lot of pressure on the moderate Muslim tendencies of Indonesia. That's one of my biggest concerns … and you guys will have to face the impact of that.”

Mr Hockey has abandoned a formerly bipartisan commitment to increase the aid budget to 0.5 per cent of national income, but insisted that his savings are only a reduction in the growth, not a cut in real terms.

But Mr Davies said the total aid budget this year was $5.66 billion, and, on the Coalition's figures, they propose to save $656 million this financial year.

The AusAID budget only makes up about 80 per cent of the total aid budget, but the Coalition costings document appears to have overlooked the rest, Mr Davies said.

“That makes the aid program smaller by 3.6 per cent in real terms relative to the 2012-13 aid budget,” Mr Davies said.

“It's not just a reduction in growth but a real cut."

Mr Davies said that, from what Julie Bishop has said, the Pacific and Papua New Guinea were likely to be protected under the Coalition so, "you'd have to to assume that Asia programs will be pretty significantly cut" relative to current plans.

The Indonesian program under Labor stood at $541 million spending in 2012-13 and had been expected to increase to at least $800 million by 2015-16. That would need to be significantly cut to meet the Coalition's savings targets, Mr Davies said.

The cuts would probably be concentrated on programs from which Australia could most easily withdraw, such as Indonesia's national people's empowerment program which provides direct cash transfers to needy communities. Because Australia was a very large donor to this program, but not the only one, the program itself would shrink, but not close down.

"I expect them to target programs like this rather than those where they've already signed contractual arrangements with providers," Mr Davies said.

The Indonesian minister for national development planning, Armida Alisjahbana, said whatever the result of the Australian election, "we respect and honour the development policy that will be applied".

"In this context, the size of the assistance – although it is of significant importance – is not a major issue in the bilateral cooperation," she said.

On Friday, some retiring moderate Liberal MPs said they were disappointed with the planned foreign aid cuts.

WA Liberal Judi Moylan, who is bowing out after 20 years in Parliament, said some people objected to foreign aid because they experienced problems with Australian services, but it was up to leaders to address both issues.

"Really, $4.5 billion over four years is pretty savage," Ms Moylan said.

Another retiring WA Liberal, Mal Washer, described the decision as "a shame" but argued the nation's budget position required the Coalition to make cuts somewhere and foreign aid may be "more politically palatable to people".

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott hardened his language, saying the Coalition would build modern roads in Australia "rather than shovel money abroad".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/coalition-cuts-to-aid-increase-risk-of-hardline-islamists-20130906-2taf2.html#ixzz2e6EMvuMd

Coalition cuts to indigenous legal aid under fire
Date
September 6, 2013 - 6:54PM

Indigenous Australians could be more likely to go to jail under an Abbott government in light of Coalition plans to cut $42 million from indigenous legal services.

That is the view of Shane Duffy, the chairman of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service (NATSILS).

He said the planned cuts were disappointing after Liberal leader Tony Abbott previously said he hoped to be a "prime minister for Aboriginal affairs".

"It's not a good look to start by slashing the program that provides funding to culturally competent legal assistance services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples," Mr Duffy said.

Advertisement
He said the services were critical for indigenous peoples, who were 15 times more likely to be imprisoned than other Australians, particularly in areas where there was no other legal help.

If indigenous legal aid groups were forced to cut services, "people will be left to face court without any advice or representation, which is meant to be a basic right protected in Australia", Mr Duffy said.

"Having individuals attend court without representation will clog already heavy court lists, cause catastrophic interruptions to the justice system and arguably increase the likelihood of people going to jail and the perpetuation of the cycle of over-incarceration.”

On Thursday shadow treasurer Joe Hockey revealed $9 billion in savings under an Abbott government, including slashing $42 million from the Indigenous Policy Reform Program, which funds legal services across Australia, over the next four years.

Asked what this would involve, Mr Hockey said: "That effectively deals with legal aid services delivered by contractors at various sites ... and what we've said is we're scaling it back by about 20 per cent."

But shadow attorney-general George Brandis said on Friday the cut was not expected to affect indigenous legal aid, only policy reform administered under the program.

"Given Labor's fiscal irresponsibility, the Coalition has had to look for savings in the budget to ensure spending is once more under control."

NATSILS deputy chair Priscilla Collins said federal funding for the program fell in one "bucket" with no separate funding for policy reform. "That's going to have a direct impact on our service delivery."

Indigenous legal services employed a handful of policy officers around the country at a total cost of about $1 million a year, compared with the $5 million a Coalition government would cut from the program in the next financial year.

The Law Council of Australia's David Neal, SC, said: "If Aboriginal people get excluded from legal services they will get thrown back onto the state and territory-based [legal aid] commissions, which are already in crisis."

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus added that $12 million to NATSILS over two years to help them "respond to expensive and complex criminal cases" in the May budget.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/coalition-cuts-to-indigenous-legal-aid-under-fire-20130906-2tah9.html#ixzz2e6P0bVqd

One more day, Labor stooges. One more day.

Get ready for a reaming you deserve.

Yeah, at the hands of the Liberal Government who will fuck everything up to give billionaires tax cuts.

Actually looking forward to the media and the right try and put a positive spin on the next 3 years :lol:

It will be interesting that's for sure.

Edited by A16Man: 6/9/2013 08:16:18 PM

Hope we all enjoy penalty rates for working this weekend because very soon they'll be a thing of the past.

I'm sure Abbott will be hauling us off to gulags for peacefully protesting in no time.

Governments come and Governments go, most are a mixture of good and bad, and usually the margins between victory and defeat are relatively small...even in a landslide.

But this is the first time that I can remember where the media bias and spin has been so blatantly and deliberately over the top, that we are allowing someone to be elected Prime Minister on a bedrock of lies and untruths....this election has been won and lost for the glorification of one man....and he isnt even an Australian citizen....congratulations!

Q&A: Ex-Australian PM attacks refugee policy

Malcolm Fraser, a former prime minister, says tough asylum-seeker policies have damaged Australia's reputation.

Nigel O'Connor Last Modified: 06 Sep 2013 10:18

Melbourne, Australia - Australians head to the polling booths on Saturday to elect a new government, and the issue of asylum-seekers arriving by boat has played a major part in the election campaigns of both major parties.

Malcom Fraser served as a Liberal prime minister between 1975 and 1983, a period in which the country saw refugees arriving following the end of the Vietnam War.

Now an outspoken critic of the Australian government's treatment of asylum-seekers, Fraser sat down with Al Jazeera to discuss the political and social ramifications of the issue.

Al Jazeera: Is the policy debate regarding asylum seekers damaging Australia's international reputation?

Malcolm Fraser: The policy debates over the last 10 years have gone a long way towards destroying a reputation we had as a humane and decent society.

So much of what the political parties claim about asylum seekers is wrong. For example, the claim that people who come by boat are "illegals".

The people who come on boats have, over the years, been found to be the most deserving.

When the Gillard government stopped processing, in August, 12 months ago, at that point a little over 90 percent of people who arrived on boats were found to be genuine refugees.

AJ: How do you explain the fact that the two issues of most concern to the Australian public at this election are the economy and asylum-seekers?

MF: I think a lot of people are worried that the political parties are focusing not on the fundamentals but on things that they think are going to be popular in the short term.

The asylum-seeker issue I can understand being a cause for concern, but there's also a view out in the community that both parties are pursuing a very harsh and inhumane policy - and therefore I'm not sure if there's much political advantage between parties.

If one party feels there's a perception one is tougher than the other, then the one feeling it's falling behind seems to find some new way to be harsh to some of the most vulnerable people in the world.

AJ: How do you assess the Rudd government's deal with Papua New Guinea (PNG) to process and resettle refugees?

MF: I hope the outcome of it is that it's unconstitutional.

Papua New Guinea is a very poor country and would not have the capacity to accept and assimilate a large number of asylum seekers proven to be refugees. It would lead to more problems with Australia because you can cross between PNG and northern Queensland in a canoe.

Most of all, Australia is relatively a wealthy country. We should not put the responsibility that should rest on our shoulders on to a struggling country like PNG.

AJ: Do you see the major parties' competing policies on asylum seekers as constituting a 'race to the bottom'?

MF: I labelled it that a long while ago, but in the last month or two I would say that both political parties have made a hole in the bottom of the barrel and have gone well below it.

When the Gillard Government held the Houston Enquiry [into boat arrivals], evidence was put before that committee making it perfectly plain you could stop the boats and people drowning at sea; emphasising that for the programme to work you would have to take all the recommendations, not just one or two - but the government cherry picked.

I fear the debates over the last 10 years have created a Christian-Muslim divide in Australia.

Malcolm Fraser, former prime minister of Australia

Why it chose to ignore several key recommendations, which resulted in more people getting on boats, I don't understand.

John Howard [the former Liberal prime minister] claimed he stopped the boats. It's true he introduced harsh policies and the boats stopped, but the harsh policies had nothing to do with the boats stopping.

Changed circumstances in the countries from which people flee led to the numbers dropping - not the deterrent policies. That situation has never been explained to the Australian public.

The political parties forget that and the Liberal Party gets away with the claim that they stopped the boats in the past.

Who do you vote for at this election? The standard has to be: Who will do least harm? What a wretched standard to have to apply to your political process. I never thought it would be like this.

AJ: Where do you see the debate and policy arrangements heading, given the likelihood that boatloads of people claiming asylum will continue to make their way to Australia?

MF: Whoever wins, the policy will be bad. It will be inhumane and it will be brutal.

I fear in Australia a return to the sectarianism that divided society between Protestant and Catholic following the conscription debates during the First World War, which put a divide in the Australian community which didn't start to die until the late 1950s.

I fear the debates over the last 10 years have created a Christian-Muslim divide in Australia.

There's obviously no concern about these issues amongst our politicians - they don't care if they fan that kind of hatred. I just hate to think that this has taken hold in Australia but I fear that it has.

AJ: Please explain your government's response to boat arrivals and the political climate of the time.

MF: Both political parties have resolutely refused to accept or recognise that there is a model that Australia did apply - not only a regional but an international approach to the problem - and it worked.

After the Vietnam War, tens of thousands of people were fleeing Indo-China - a lot of them in no more than river boats incapable of surviving at sea.

Very large numbers were trying to make landfall in Malaysia, which was pushing boats back out to sea fearing they would be left with a problem they couldn't handle. Quite a number of boats got through to Australia.

We believed that somehow we had to try to get people out of boats. We knew a lot had drowned, we knew some had been picked up by passing freighters.

With the UNHCR, we persuaded Malaysia to establish a processing centre which wasn't a burden on Malaysia, and we received a commitment from the United States and from Canada - along with ourselves - that we would all take very large numbers from that centre.

We took over 20,000 a year for three years in a row out of that centre. Canada took a few more than we did and America took a lot more than either Canada or Australia.

They were assessed in that centre and then were flown to their destination, and all of that happened with speed, no punitive penalty waiting time.

People were received with extraordinary generosity and that was the real Australia - the Australia that both parties have betrayed over the last ten years, and especially over the last 12 months.

AJ: Would this solution be workable today?

MF: You can only do the same sort of thing - a broader international solution. Find other countries to take refugees and really make it an international solution, because a very large part of these refugee movements are caused by American foreign policy.

AJ: Do you see the politicisation of the asylum-seeker issue, since 2001 and the Tampa incident, as being inevitable or by the design of John Howard, then-prime minister?

MF: It was a conscious decision to appeal to narrow-minded Australians to win votes. Without it, Howard would have lost that election [in 2001].

I remember speaking with very senior people within the Labor Party at the time and I said: "There are lot of Liberals who hate these policies, who hate what's happening and a lot of people in your own party who hate these policies - why don’t you appeal to the middle ground?"

The person I was speaking to just looked at me and said: "Malcom, you just don't understand how this ripped so many rednecks out of the Labor Party - I'm not going to let them rip any more."

It was competition for the rednecks and a major error of judgement by the Labor Party. I think John Howard knew exactly what he was doing.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/09/20139513354050537.html?

This is going to be fun . The people who vote Abbott in are in the future going to complain about him . I'm over the bias from newscorp , I don't buy newspapers for editorials as front page news

Wow another Labor Nostradamus who can see into the future. I'm over the bias of Fairfax and the ABC, it all balances out in the end.

You're kidding, right?

I don't think you're fit to comment on bias Joffy.

Hopefully not long, I think we all agree if Turnbull was leader this election would've been over a long time ago.

Yeah blaming Rupert rather than Labors utterly dismal pathetic performance, what great insight you possess.

lol at rusty, anyone who speaks against LNP must be auto-Labour supporters.

:lol:

-PB

And ABC can be biased towards LNP in 24 hours time ;)

-PB

The government has had its flaws ,but so has Howard's government . Face it ruppert is using his influence here , he done it in England has done it in the us .

No idea what gave you that impression.

Business groups push Liberals to axe penalty rates
Date
September 7, 2013

Australia's most influential business and industry groups will renew their push to reduce penalty rates for workers on Sundays and public holidays - particularly in retail, tourism and hospitality - if Tony Abbott becomes prime minister.

The Coalition has promised existing workplace laws will remain largely in place if it wins government, but has pledged to run a Productivity Commission review of the industrial relations system. But a wide coalition of business groups says action must be taken quickly to cut penalty rates particularly on Sundays, when pay rates in retail jump to more than $40. In hospitality, employer groups have focused on Sundays and public holidays, when pay rates jump to double-time-and-a-half - meaning a qualified chef should be paid more than $50 an hour.

Among the groups that will push the Coalition to review penalty rates if it wins office are the Business Council of Australia, which recently released a report arguing that any Productivity Commission review must look at ''the impact of penalty rates on business competitiveness and employment growth, particularly in the retail and hospitality sectors''.

The Tourism and Transport Forum also released polling during the election campaign showing two-thirds of tourism operators want penalty rates reviewed. Chief executive Ken Morrison said the existing penalty rates regime was ''designed for a 20th century industrial base''.

Advertisement
Also set to pursue a new government hard over penalty rates is the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Chief executive Peter Anderson said there had been anger among industry groups over a pledge by Julia Gillard when she was workplace minister that pay rates would not be pushed up dramatically under the new Fair Work system. ''And yet they increased them substantially,'' he said.

Mr Anderson said a Coalition government, if elected, would take some convincing before Senator Eric Abetz, its industrial relations spokesman, would go back on a pledge to wait until after the Productivity Commission review. ''It has been an article of faith that the opposition has taken this very restricted view about changes to the Fair Work system, so I think we in industry have got a steep mountain to climb.''

Senator Abetz's office did not respond to a request for comment on the issue.

In August, research done for the ACTU showed huge public support for penalty rates, with a phone poll of 1052 people finding four out of five supporting higher hourly rates for workers who work night shifts, weekends or public holidays. And 64 per cent said the main impact of abolishing penalty rates would be to increase business profits.

ACTU president Ged Kearney said there was little doubt penalty rates were under threat if an Abbott-led government was elected. ''A Coalition win will be a dream outcome for the business lobby who will have an ally in power, willing to do their bidding,'' she said. Industry groups were ''hoping to cut wages … under the proviso that removing penalty rates will [create jobs],'' Ms Kearney said.

Industrial relations expert Sarah Ralph, a partner with employer law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, said Mr Abbott had been very clear about retaining the Fair Work Commission as the umpire on matters like penalty rates. But she said, ''that doesn't preclude the government from making submissions to the commission, and that can be quite persuasive''.



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/business-groups-push-liberals-to-axe-penalty-rates-20130906-2tau7.html#ixzz2e70H8c4i

Just because Ruperts bias was blantant doens't mean it was particularly effective. To say Rupert decided the outcome of the election by printing an obscure front page in a newspaper is just red herring and a really really really poor excuse after six years of terrible government.

Is it possible Labor are going to lose thing election because people think they legitimately suck balls, just thought I'd throw that out there.