talk about denial](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

FMD... You blokes are hilarious, not to mention contradictory.

Accuse the ALP of "winging it" whilst disregarding actual documented evidence, expert opinion & studies that back their policies, and parrot the "stop da boatz" bullshit whilst also advocating of allowing business to import cheap labor from anywhere in the world it pleases.

How dare you people accuse me of being motivated by ideology :lol:

Like I said in an earlier post... If you want to bring foreigners in to fill jobs that people eligible for work in Australia don't want to do... Why do we have labor laws or borders at all?

Lets just open the doors and let the free market work it out.

To be fair, normal opinion probably looks like communist russia to a hard-line fascist like thupercoach.

we have already open then door and have unprotected borders.....

and why is it Gillard can do it with her spin doctor???????

Wat

Reality has a left-wing bias.

I disagree with the wholesale destruction and privatisation of public owned and government run services and the allowing of Australian companies to offshore jobs and profits, avoid tax and the importation of foreign workers to do jobs that should be done by people who are living in Australia in the long-term, regardless of their nationality.

Is Qantas one company that must be private? I disagree.

Must it be public? No as well.

Should there be a balance, either in Qantas itself, or within the Airline industry, that ensures that companies actually support the nation and the people they are making money in?

Is Qantas the best choice for my views on public ownership of companies? Definitely not. I would look to Energy, Water and Telecommunications long before I would look at Qantas.

Does that make me a communist? Would that make the "Commonwealth of Mack" a Stanlist state?

Hardly.

Choosing to spout rhetoric, barrelling head first down the slippery slope does not enhance your arguments for laissez faire 'Small' (not including the NSA snooping your Facebook or invading foreign countries on the basis of fabricated evidence) government.

Put up or shut up: Gray tells Rudd
Date
June 21, 2013 - 3:33PM
76 reading nowRead later

Jonathan Swan

Labor cabinet minister Gary Gray has called on Kevin Rudd and his supporters to ''put up or shut up'' on the subject of leadership.

After a week of intense leadership speculation, the Resources and Energy Minister described Mr Rudd's media statements as ''mumbling'' and ''mumbo jumbo''.

''It's confusing and I think Kevin's confusing,'' Mr Gray told ABC radio on Friday. ''I genuinely think that if Kevin Rudd wishes to challenge, he should do so.

''I do believe they should put up or shut up,'' Mr Gray said. "Mr Rudd should test his support in caucus or he should get on with campaigning to ensure Labor's vote is as strong as it can be.

Advertisement
''What Kevin does is he draws the conversation so it's the Labor Party talking about itself and that is such an unproductive activity,'' he said.

Soon after, Labor backbencher and Rudd-supporter, Ed Husic, appeared on Sky to criticise Mr Gray for attacking Mr Rudd.


Ed Husic, pictured with Kevin Rudd, says Gary Gray's comments were "pretty provocative". Photo: Andrew Meares
''Today I thought those words were pretty provocative and instead of trying to trigger a blue [Gray] should be triggering a turnaround,'' Mr Husic said.

''We are basically stuck in a rut and we need to find a way to get out. And so, as I said, like, instead of triggering a fight, triggering a blue, trigger the turnaround".

Mr Husic said he did not want a ''semiotics lesson'', where Mr Rudd was being interpreted by colleagues.


Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten says reports the Prime Minister has shut him out are 'baseless'. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
The exchange came after Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten rejected reports that he had been shut out by the Prime Minister as ''baseless and inaccurate''.

Mr Shorten a key backer of Julia Gillard when she took over from Mr Rudd, said on Friday morning that he continued to have ''a strong working relationship with the Prime Minister''.

"I have a great deal of respect for the Prime Minister and continue to support her,'' Mr Shorten said.

Speaking to the Seven Network on Friday morning, Mr Rudd said the latest speculation was an inevitable part of politics and the country has ''had a gutful'' of the ongoing uncertainty in the ALP.

But he tempered his previous assertions about his renewed leadership ambitions saying: ''I don't believe there are any circumstances under which that would happen.''

Mr Rudd had previously been unequivocal about the issue saying there were ''no circumstances'' under which he would return to the job.

Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey pounced on the comments saying that Mr Rudd was subtly altering his stance.

''He said previously 'there are no circumstances', now he says 'I believe there are no circumstances'. These are weasel words,'' Mr Hockey told Seven.

On Friday, the prime minister's trusted deputy Wayne Swan refused to say if he'd retreat to the backbench if Mr Rudd mounted a successful challenge.

He said leadership speculation was built on ''fictional'' media reports.

''The fact is when you pick up the papers and read the stories in the morning, what you find is a lot of rubbish,'' he told reporters in Brisbane.

''So I would urge people not to take any notice of the rubbish that have been printed on the front pages of newspapers on a daily basis.''

Mr Swan was the latest in a line of MPs and union officials commenting on the leadership issue in the past two days.

Cabinet minister Anthony Albanese, a confidant and supporter of Mr Rudd, told the Nine Network on Friday morning: ''There is no challenge, there's nothing happening."

Another Rudd supporter, Labor backbencher Darren Cheeseman, who also played down the prospect of a leadership change.

''We will be proceeding to the election with Julia as our leader,'' he told reporters as he left Parliament House on Thursday evening for his ultra-marginal Victorian seat of Corangamite.

Earlier in the week, one of Mr Rudd's key supporters and number-counters, Joel Fitzgibbon, said the leadership issue was settled in March and that there was no chance of a change before the election.

Such concessions by the Rudd camp come as union leaders unite behind Ms Gillard.

Labor's national president Tony Sheldon warned MPs what would happen if they make the switch to Kevin Rudd.

''If Kevin Rudd was there, he won't be elected (by the voters) because the newspapers, the media will be turning around and making an attack on Kevin Rudd,'' he said.

Mr Sheldon suggested ''powerful forces'' with influence were going after Ms Gillard.

''They want to see an Abbott government. They are determined to do whatever they can,'' he told ABC Radio on Friday morning.

''At the moment if ever there was a change in the leadership – which there will not be – we should get behind the Gillard government.''

Australian Workers Union boss Paul Howes said on Thursday that the union movement was "united" behind Ms Gillard.

with AAP



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/put-up-or-shut-up-gray-tells-rudd-20130621-2omj9.html#ixzz2WqVX6uJU

Edited by Joffa: 21/6/2013 08:39:39 PM

We're going to be getting these stories about a Rudd-lead APL coup every three days until the election, aren't we?

Rudd will be PM within the next 10 days

Of course. It fulfils multiple role for the Murdoch backed MSM:
1) It tarnishes Labor.
2) It avoids putting a spotlight on the Liberals failure of policy, example, their Fraudband that conveniently forgot to put in the cost of buying the Telstra copper that the Telstra CEO just said could last 'another hundred years' (ie, driving up the price), that they must purchase to actually do their policy.
3) It means even more people tune out of yet another round of leadership talk.

10 Days?

That timeline keeps slipping. It's just like Chris and his claims that Heart are going bankrupt, or the "Iran is going to attack the USA" threads on Whirlpool, that have been going for 10 years now. :lol:

Edited by macktheknife: 21/6/2013 09:34:57 PM

Didn't you claim that a month ago?

Gee Labor's a rabble. Irrespective of who is the figurehead PM.

For the sake of the nation, Ms Gillard should stand aside

EDITORIAL

It is time for Julia Gillard to stand aside as leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, as Prime Minister of Australia, so that vigorous, policy-driven democratic debate can flourish once again. Ms Gillard should do so in the interests of the Labor Party, in the interests of the nation and, most importantly, in the interests of democracy. The Age's overriding concern is that, under Ms Gillard's leadership, the Labor Party's message about its future policies and vision for Australia is not getting through to the electorate. Our fear is that if there is no change in Labor leadership before the September 14 election, voters will be denied a proper contest of ideas and policies - and that would be a travesty for the democratic process.

The Age does not advocate this lightly. We do so with all respect to Ms Gillard, recognising that in the three years she has occupied the office of Prime Minister - most of it under the vexing circumstances of a hung Parliament - Labor has implemented landmark reforms, which we hope will remain. We are not saying Ms Gillard should stand aside because of Labor's policies, but because she has been unable to lift the party out of a desperately difficult political position.


A big majority of the electorate appears to have stopped listening to Ms Gillard. Voters have been so distracted by internal and external speculation about Labor's leadership that efforts by the Prime Minister and her ministers to enunciate a narrative, a strategic vision, for the nation's future beyond this year have failed. If our national political discourse continues in this way, the outcome is writ large: Labor would face a devastating loss in September. Outright control of both houses may be delivered to the Coalition and, more importantly for our democracy, the opportunity for Labor to present a vigorous opposition in Parliament would be diminished.


Ms Gillard came to the office of Prime Minister three years ago, in bitter circumstances, after deposing Kevin Rudd in a caucus challenge, which he did not contest. The polls in mid-2010 had indicated Labor was in danger of losing an election under Mr Rudd, and inside the party there was concern about his increasingly autocratic style. Ms Gillard said she challenged ''because I believed that a good government was losing its way … I love this country, and I was not going to sit idly by and watch an incoming opposition cut education, cut health and smash rights at work''. The Age at the time interpreted her to mean that the Rudd government ''had struggled to explain and justify its policies to voters, and to remind them of its achievements''. The situation is eerily similar today. Unfortunately, the government under Ms Gillard has lost its way. And despite her entreaties to Labor's caucus to stick fast, nothing appears to be changing. No one in Labor has stepped onto the front foot with confidence to reinvigorate the divided and demoralised parliamentary party. The onus falls on Ms Gillard to break the impasse.


The electorate is despairing of the uncertainty and the petty back-biting within Labor. The Age is more despairing of the vacuum in policy debate. Mr Rudd was a flawed leader as prime minister, but he says he is a changed man and that he has learnt much from losing the confidence of his party room. The Age is not entirely convinced about that, but we cannot ignore the clear and consistent evidence of the opinion polls that his return to the leadership would lift Labor's stocks and enhance its prospects of making the election a genuine contest.

Australians deserve a representative Parliament of diverse ideas. They deserve authoritative and inspiring leaders, who command with compassion and respect for all. They deserve a government that can clearly describe a future Australia of which we can all be proud - not one that will divide, marginalise or exclude. They deserve more than to be thrown scraps of policies couched in negative terms, or policies that are not properly scrutinised and debated. As it stands, the Coalition is being given a free run by a Labor Party which is tormented by its own frailties; too many of the Coalition's proposed policies, some little more than slogans, are sliding through.

The opposition under Tony Abbott has contentious policies on the carbon tax, the mining tax and schools funding; these are just the start of it. Yet Labor under Ms Gillard has been unable to step up to the contest. Mr Abbott is being allowed to run almost entirely unchallenged with his preposterous claim that a Coalition government would ''stop the boats'', in part by turning back the pathetic trail of rickety vessels laden with asylum seekers. This is a potentially dangerous and deeply dispiriting approach. Labor's inability to unscramble this sloganeering is damning.

Time is running out. Labor needs to refresh its public face and present a compelling, united and inspiring voice. It is capable of doing so. Now it must find the will. There may only be one chance to minimise the damage that appears inevitable in September. To do nothing would implicitly weaken the democratic choice. If it is to be done, it is best done now. But it must be an unequivocal and energising change for the better.



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/for-the-sake-of-the-nation-ms-gillard-should-stand-aside-20130621-2oo6e.html#ixzz2WuVpnLN9

Edited by Joffa: 22/6/2013 01:08:35 PM

Jesus fucking christ.

STOP POSTING RUMOURS ABOUT LEADERSHIP THEN.

Fuck me dead.

The mainstream media has spent months, if not years, posting day after day about how Rudd is going to 'have the leadership within days'.

If you want to start posting about policies, then just start doing it! No-one is forcing you to reprint rumours invented by the Liberal party.

Edited by macktheknife: 22/6/2013 01:35:19 PM

Why Rudd should become the leader
Date
June 19, 2013

Timothy Wilson
Only one man can fix the ALP's rot and lead the party to a less painful defeat.

In Canberra this week, members of the ALP caucus are grappling once again with the question of who should lead their party to the forthcoming federal election.

It seemed to have been definitively settled on March 21 when Rudd failed to challenge for the leadership and several of his prominent backers resigned their ministries. The matter has reared its head again largely because, despite her best efforts, Julia Gillard's political leadership is failing.

Since March, the Prime Minister has not suffered the kind of ''death by a thousand backgroundings'' that some of her more rusted-on supporters like to claim is the reason for the bad polls. Instead Gillard has had abundant oxygen in which to prosecute her political case for re-election. The public is not listening. Voters are not even giving her begrudging credit for introducing a disability insurance scheme or pursuing the Gonski school funding reforms.

Even Gillard's political strength and raison d'etre as an effective manager of a minority government is quickly becoming redundant as the sitting weeks expire.

Advertisement
For caucus members there is a pretty straightforward calculus for why Rudd should become the leader. In all likelihood, Rudd can do no worse at the election than Gillard and will probably do better.

Caucus members should ask themselves who the Coalition would rather face: Gillard, an unsuccessful campaigner who will hand Tony Abbott the prime ministership on a silver platter; or Rudd, a successful campaigner who the public prefers to Abbott.

In terms of the benefits of a Rudd revival, there is a tangible difference between having 35 to 40 lower house MPs after the election (the likely result of a Gillard-led Labor Party), compared with the 50 to 60 lower house MPs that Rudd would see returned.

And then there is the Senate. An opposition that has to negotiate with the ALP or the Greens is better than one that depends on conservative independents such as John Madigan or the Katter party.

An extra 20 or more members of caucus that Kevin Rudd might be able to deliver will be crucial to rebuilding the Labor Party in opposition. Compare the dilapidated Labor oppositions in NSW and Queensland with the performance of a numerically stronger opposition in Victoria. Badly resourced oppositions struggle to strike a blow on the government, leaving them unaccountable. The margin of defeat matters.

Yet there is an even more profound and less-appreciated reason why caucus should switch to Rudd to lead the party to the election - and keep him there for a period beyond it. Rudd wants to reform the party because he knows, from his own brutal experience, that the faceless men syndrome needs to be cured. To this end Rudd's leadership is supported in caucus by John Faulkner and Bob Carr, who authored the post-election review with Steve Bracks that Julia Gillard dismissively swept under the rug in 2011.

The ALP needs to have a serious discussion about party reform and the representation of unions at its national conference; the role of branch members and even the election of the party leader. Policies such as gay marriage also need to be argued out again.

Caucus should consider the alternative to Rudd returning. If Gillard stays as leader and resigns after the election, then Bill Shorten is likely to become the opposition leader. Although he is still a work in progress, Shorten can undoubtedly cut through, and he possesses a good instinct for identifying Labor-friendly issues on which to campaign.

Yet, as Aaron Patrick's new book highlights, Shorten's power base is dependent upon the old, closed structures that are now rotting the ALP. There is no reason to believe Shorten will undertake the necessary reforms to the party.

To have any chance of success at the following election, Shorten must inherit a reformed party and a decent opposition from Rudd.

Ultimately, for caucus members considering the imminent fate of themselves and the longer-term future of the ALP, Rudd provides a chance of improving not only the numbers in parliament but the party's flawed structures. Gillard provides neither.

Timothy Wilson is a member of the ALP. He is a former adviser to Martin Ferguson in the Rudd and Gillard Governments.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/why-rudd-should-become-the-leader-20130618-2ogke.html#ixzz2WudWevyJ

Jeez mack, you're not even bright enough to realise the Age is Labor - it's Victoria's SMH. The writer, like the rest of labor, cares little about the country and is just being politically expedient in wanting Rudd back.

My point has nothing to do with what political side they are on.

It has to do with complaining about 'messages not getting through to the electorate', even though they are the people who keep writing about the leadership 'issue' instead of the policies.

I'm not interested in reading media from biased points of view. What do you suggest I read for something truly independent?

Not in this country.

Not in Australia. The newspapers may as well be party owned.

So if the government is so worried about foreign workers, who would spend money in the local economy and pay taxes here, why don't they stop the major banks and insurance companies using overseas call centers??
Seems fair to me, no local jobs and no tax paid in Australia, bring in some form of tax or tariff to make it less viable for the big end of town who only consider their shareholders, and they make ridiculous margins of profit


Just saying

I agree Comrade Batfink!

How do you tax a company for moving operations overseas though?

Easy ÿou offer tax concessions based on the following criteria.

1. Maintain workforce numbers = % discount
2. Increase workforce numbers = % discount (Sliding scale ie. greater increase = greater discount)
3. Decrease workforce no company tax discount

Eight reasons offshore processing is a failure

The Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has found that Australia's regional processing legislation violates many of our human rights obligations.

At a time when the Coalition is advocating tougher border protection policies, this is a wakeup call that we have already gone far too far.

Based on the substantial evidence before it, the committee reached the only sound conclusion it could: Australia's asylum policy has a "significant risk of being incompatible with a range of human rights".

The report outlines a litany of breaches under a range of human rights treaties. It is akin to a checklist of what not to do.

Advertisement
First, the committee found that Australia's offshore processing and "no advantage" policies unlawfully discriminate between asylum seekers based on their mode and date of arrival.

Second, the regional processing arrangements with Nauru and Papua New Guinea do not ensure that Australia's non-refoulement obligations will be respected – in other words, asylum seekers are at risk of being sent back to persecution, torture, death and other serious forms of harm.

There are further concerns about the ability of Nauru and PNG to implement rigorous mechanisms for refugee status determination and protection, and the lack of independent monitoring and oversight.

Third, conditions in the regional processing facilities fall short of the minimum standards required by human rights treaties. Manus Island was held to be unfit for children and vulnerable people, such as pregnant women, people with disabilities or other complex health needs, or survivors of torture and trauma. Such persons already there should be returned to Australia urgently, and no further transfers of such individuals should occur until conditions are vastly improved.

Fourth, the cumulative impact of the policy - in particular on people's physical and mental health - was found to constitute degrading treatment under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We should be ashamed of this. Australia itself has undertaken not to send people back to countries where they risk inhuman or degrading treatment, yet our own asylum policy is subjecting people to this form of harm.

Fifth, Australia retains responsibility under international law for the treatment of asylum seekers on Nauru and PNG. This is because of Australia's significant involvement in arrangements relating to the detention, upkeep and provision of services to transferred asylum seekers; and the fact that a joint committee has been established to oversee arrangements in Nauru and PNG, the collaborative role of which is clearly set out in memorandums of understanding.

Sixth, the "no advantage" principle has gone much further than was originally contemplated by the Expert Panel. It has actively created disadvantage. It is deliberately exacerbating delays in the processing of asylum claims and finding durable solutions, which is inconsistent with the prohibition on arbitrary detention. Nine months after the adoption of the policy, no boat arrivals' asylum claims have been processed in Australia or PNG, and only some preliminary interviews have been held for asylum seekers transferred to Nauru.

Further, the denial of work rights to asylum seekers living in the Australian community means that many face poverty and homelessness and are dependent on community services for basic subsistence. This may amount to destitution, contrary to Australia's obligations under several human rights treaties.

Seventh, the "no advantage" policy is having unintended consequences. For instance, the bar on family reunion means there is now a greater incentive for families to travel by boat with their children. This, in turn, may increase demand for people smugglers.

Eighth, and finally, the committee concluded that the "no advantage" principle was an ineffective deterrent. Indeed, even the Immigration Department conceded this in evidence to the committee. Importantly, it acknowledged that recent increases in boat arrivals had to be understood as part of a general increase of asylum seekers worldwide. Even despite this, the numbers of asylum seekers en route to Australia remain minute (about one per cent of the world's refugees).

The committee's report highlights just how far Australia has strayed from the fundamental human rights we have agreed to respect under international law, and how much our politicians are letting us down.

Jane McAdam is Scientia Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales and the co-author of The Refugee in International Law, with GS Goodwin-Gill.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/eight-reasons-offshore-processing-is-a-failure-20130620-2old6.html#ixzz2X29uB000

Fewer voters want carbon tax axed
Date
June 23

Tony Abbott's insistence that the election will be a ''referendum on the carbon tax'' has been undermined by polling showing just a third of voters support the Coalition's plan to abolish the tax.

Fewer voters want to see the carbon tax removed now than before it took effect on July 1 last year.

Nearly half the voters, or 48 per cent, wanted the tax scrapped a year ago.

But a poll of 1009 people, conducted by JWS Research for the Climate Institute, found just 37 per cent of them now supported the Coalition's intention to wind the tax back in favour of its ''Direct Action'' policy, which involves paying companies to reduce emissions.

Advertisement
Even fewer people - 34 per cent - would back an Abbott government calling a double dissolution election to fulfil its ''pledge in blood'' to repeal the tax.

Less than half the Coalition voters would back Mr Abbott taking Australia back to the polls.

JWS pollster John Scales said the Opposition Leader had failed to convince people carbon pricing should be scrapped because two-thirds of Australians believed climate change was real.

Climate change believers accounted for 66 per cent of voters compared with 64 per cent a year ago.

Mr Scales said: ''The Coalition's complaint that everyone wants to get rid of the carbon tax is not backed up by the numbers.''

He said more voters wanted to see the tax ''fixed up'' than those who supported the tree-planting, soil carbon capture and direct subsidies proposed by the Coalition.

''People are confused by direct action,'' Mr Scales said.

While failing to convince voters the carbon tax should be scrapped, Mr Abbott's political attack on Labor over its implementation remains potent.

More voters who said they would not vote for the government raised the issue of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's ''lie'' over the tax than the tax itself.

Only ''economic mismanagement'' and ''lies and broken promises'' in general were higher on the list of gripes of people looking to change the government.

A spokeswoman for Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said the polling confirmed Mr Abbott's scare campaign on carbon pricing had collapsed under the weight of its own dishonesty.

''A carbon price remains the cheapest and most efficient way for Australia to reduce its emissions and tackle climate change - and Tony Abbott knows it," she said.

The Opposition Leader said the election would be a referendum on the carbon tax, repeating that he would abolish it.

''There is no mystery as to how this will happen,'' he said. ''The Coalition's direct action plan will improve our environment and get emissions down.''

Climate Institute chief executive John Connor said the process of introducing the carbon laws was more a proxy for a question of trust than the policy itself.

''The claim that this election is a referendum on the carbon tax is without foundation.''

He said the poll had recognised that the cost of living impact had not been as a severe as feared, and carbon pricing was showing results.



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/fewer-voters-want-carbon-tax-axed-20130622-2opby.html#ixzz2X2DoDEih

As poll looms, what are people on the street talking about?

Date
June 23, 2013

Who will lead the Labor Party to the election might be the question consuming federal politicians, but is it the main conversation around the office, over a beer and while watching from the sidelines at children's sporting matches?

Keeping your job, making sure schools are properly funded and that a hospital bed is available when you need it remain the issues voters care the most about. And how about issues such as population growth, banning junk food advertising or political donations?

Political commentators and experts say work-life balance rates highly as an issue with families, with many questioning whether the government has got the balance right and whether an Abbott government will, if or when it wins power.

The Australia Institute's Richard Denniss said the issue of life balance was claimed as a point of difference by each side, when there has been no great improvement for workers.

"John Howard said it was a barbecue stopper. No one's even got time for a barbecue any more."

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott points to government debt as an alarming issue for voters, but Prime Minister Julia Gillard warned that the economy, and a host of policies Australians want kept, would be under threat if the Coalition was elected.

Dr Denniss said it was not only the Labor leadership debate distracting political parties.

"Even when they're not talking about leadership they're still not talking about the things that matter to most Australians," he said.

So what is Australia talking about?

1 Will I lose my job?

Jobs are being created but are Australians doing what they want and working the hours they want? The jobless rate is 5.5 per cent, so for those working long hours how is this affecting work-family balance?

2 Can hospitals look after me if I get sick?

Are services in public hospitals improving and are there more or less beds available? Are Medicare locals bringing together GPs and allied health to better case manage their patients with chronic disease? Will the Coalition disband them?

3 How will the Gonski reform change my school?

As the states slowly sign on and with the government's deadline looming, how will the Gonski reforms mean better teaching and more resources will be delivered to schools. Or is the initiative too little, too late.

4 Has the government given up on asylum seekers?

With Ms Gillard to visit Indonesia, is our immigration policy too tough or too easy on asylum seekers? What would Mr Abbott's plan of towing the boats back achieve?

5 Who wins on fast broadband?

Is the government's rollout of the NBN happening fast enough and is it worth the cost? Is the Coalition's alternative plan viable? Will it deliver what Australians are demanding?

6 The climate

''The 'carbon tax lie' is more of an issue than the carbon tax itself,'' JWS Research says.

Australians want to know how the carbon price will impact on homes and businesses. How will a move to trading emissions work? And does it even matter if the Coalition ditches the carbon tax?

7 Planes, trains and automobiles

Regional and rural locations appear to be getting infrastructure projects funded as a priority, but is this happening at the expense of cities and outer metropolitan areas? And why can't federal and state governments co-operate on the big projects and agree over funding?

8 Will I have enough on which to retire?

Will the increase in the superannuation being promised by both sides of politics be enough and will the aged care system cope in 20 years time? Will government policy help people to stay in their homes, and what is the role of government?

9 The size of Australia

Will the next generation be a house buying generation or will the dream be out of reach for too many? And Despite all the talk, too many people remain homeless. Low cost housing should be a priority. Is there a considered population growth policy? Does Australia need more people to build the economy or will an influx only lead to wider poverty?

10 Will Australia succumb to the financial crisis?

How does the GFC affect the average Australian? Has the government acted responsibly or irresponsibly to it? Today, gross debt is $255.7 billion and is now forecast to peak at $340 billion. Deficits are forecast to 2014-15. Gross debt is $255.7 billion and is the government debt acceptable if it keeps the local economy kicking? Which party is best equipped to steer the economy through the tough times?

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/as-poll-looms-what-are-people-on-the-street-talking-about-20130622-2opbw.html#ixzz2X2F2csIe

Not really, but it's a mammoth project, and it's better to get it right from the start, even if it's slow, than do a rush job and fuck it up.

It makes a 7% return on investment for the Government and provides a valuable asset once complete. The opportunity cost of giving up the NBN is very small, $3 billion a year for 10 years is minuscule compared to the overall budget and even the yearly budget of some of the larger slices of budget costs, such as Welfare & Defence.



If we were back in 2004. If Howard hadn't sold Telstra along with the copper network. And most importantly, if we hadn't already spent 4 years preparing and beginning to build a FTTP network... and it'd still be no. It'll be obsolete before it's finished, and internet usage in the country will overtake the maximum it will ever provide by 2016.



The NBN will future proof Australia's internet and phone communications for the next 50 years. By the end of the year the NBN will offer 1000/400 speeds that will be adequate for all but the largest companies (and is going to improve even more over the years), while being priced far lower than any equivalent networks available to companies now. And will be offering it to anyone in the FTTP footprint. It will be a world leading network with speed that works in both directions.

The Coalition plan is a jumble of already obsolete networks, that in addition to the 30 billion build cost, requires the Goverment to purchase back the copper network for a cost upwards of an additional $5 billion dollars. Speeds will not improve over the HFC cabling that exists already, it will only push those speeds to more people. And it will be obsolete before it's installed, and overtaken in useful life in 2016 as internet usage continues to grow.

If you need more than the 100/2.5 HFC speeds, or the 50/5 (if that) FTTN speeds, you can pay $x000's of dollars for one-off FTTP installations (for the FTTP NBN, these installation costs are recovered with monthly service payments), follow by ever increasingly high prices for the actual internet on top.

As an example, the coalition NBN will do nothing for me. I've got the fastest residential internet possible. It's likely the gimpco Coalition NBN won't even bother to rollout here, or if it does, it will be in 3 years, which is when I'm scheduled to get the real NBN anyway.

There was another example of just how behind the ball the mainstream media are on the NBN.

Only now, months after everyone in the tech sector realised that Malcolm is going to have to buy the Telstra copper network (ie, from the moment he launched his gimped plan), the MSM have finally started to go "Well... what's the quality like."

And only because David Thodey (who runs Telstra) has started position his company for a potential government change, knowing that the Liberal NBN must purchase his copper network. Conroy saw through the bullshit and exposed it, the MSM either ignored it, attacked Conroy for it, or used it as an example of how great the Liberal plan is.

The ABC actually went and asked people who work with the copper what it's state is.

Now this is something the tech community have known for years.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-23/telstras-copper-network-in-a-state-of-disrepair-say-unions/4774342

It's ratshit.

The way faults are fixed isn't to fix the fault, but to just switch the connection to a different, non-broken part of a piller or interconnect, and label it fixed. If there's water, you put a plastic bag over the connection and tape it up. It's not fixing anything, but it will last long enough for the tech not to get chewed out for it, while he can quickly move on to his next job, as the privatised Telstra stopped paying Telstra workers by the hour, and offloaded their work to sub-contractor companies who pay their subcontractors by the job.

So then comes along Malcolm, who promises to replace any copper that doesn't meet the standards.

Of course, that replacement isn't costed in his policy (then again, neither is actually buying the copper network in the first place), and no-one is calling him out on this but the ignored tech media (who have been labelled as 'religious zealots' for having the temerity to actually critically analyse the policies in an area that they have expertise in), but hey, who cares about an eleventy billion blackhole, or an issue that renders the entire thing a giant $40 billion waste of money, or that exposes the policy is completely obsolete or inadequate compared to the NBN? Can't let Uncle Rupert have his newspapers or foxtel profits eroded. Better to ruin our communications network for a period longer than Rupert's remaining lifespan) to ensure his newspapers don't die off a couple of years too soon for his liking.

Not when you can publish the one millionth article about Kevin Rudd this month, or post an editorial trying to tell the sitting Prime Minster to resign, instead of actually doing your job and reporting the news.

Great in theory, but what would they care if they can move overseas to say India, pay even LESS tax and have significantly cheaper labour costs?

Problem for me here is the lack of corporate culture........no balance in business.....these businesses make bucket loads of margin and have NO problems distributing shareholder dividends.

so what of their corporate culture??? moral,ethical and community conscience????

no balance....just provide the biggest dividend so the CEO bonus multiplies.......greed...more more more.....