it has already achieved it......

Stopped reading at ..."unprincipled campaign of deceit and cunning..."

Nearly choked on my lunch. That was Labor's campaign for 3 years as they continually character assassinated Abbott. Good that people saw through it.

Carlton's been a Labor stooge for decades. These days he's just struggling for relevance.

To the end user, not it hasn't.

My $99 connection shits all over anything Telstra would try and provide me had it not been for the NBN.

-PB

Not a service but Politicians salaries would be a good starting point.

-PB

Politicians earn far less than anyone with a similar level of responsibility in the private sector does. What does the PM get these days? I don't think it's more than about $450k per year. Compare that to the CEO's on millions.
The argument is, if you reduce the wages, the smartest people wouldn't bother with public service when they can make so much more in the private sector. This overlooks the fact that a much larger proportion of politicians these days are career pollies who wouldn't survive in the private sector anyway.
More importantly, these positions also have overly generous superannuation benefits and lifetime priveleges. They'd be the first place I'd look for cuts in government spending.

lol......=d> =d>

Well that's the populist response, you might save .000000001% of GDP. Do you have any other ideas?

The problem with lowering politicians salaries is that they then become more susceptible to corruption.

And you get more stooges running for public office. We should be increasing salaries ensuring we get better quality candidates.

higher wages doesn't ensure better performances when the available candidates are well entrenched in mediocrity.

ideally you'd have performance incentive based salaries but setting KPI's would be impossible.

It won't ensure better performances but it will attract better quality candidates who will give a better go of things

Why would it attract better candidates? All it would do is give the same incompetent buffoons a pay rise.

If you're the kind of person to scoff at a $100k+ salary are you really someone who can represent the average Australian?

If you're the sort of person who'd quit their day-job for the chance to earn $100k a year, are you really qualified to run the country?

Pay politicians peanuts and you'll get monkeys... the best candidates in Australia are almost certainly put off from running for office in Australia because either they can earn more themselves elsewhere, or they aren't interested in dealing with the idiots in office who are only there because they *can't* survive elsewhere.

I thought maybe Singapore too... but 1) as you say English is spoken by most Singaporeans and 2) Bintang singlets in Singapore? Malaysia would've been my second guess but still don't get the Bintang shirt thing... plus only a small percentage of Malaysians speak Cantonese (I would've paid it though because I bet a large percentage of Malaysian doctors are Chinese-Malaysian).

http://www.sortius-is-a-geek.com/plan-tells/

-PB

Lol Liberals.

Australia could be left with no policy on climate change

Lenore Taylor, political editor
theguardian.com, Wednesday 25 September 2013 18.30 AEST

Australia could be left without any policy to combat climate change with a new Senate likely to wave through the repeal of Labor's carbon tax but sceptical of the Coalition government's alternative $3.2bn Direct Action plan unless Tony Abbott makes major policy concessions.

Labor and the Greens remain determined to block the carbon tax repeal in the existing Senate, which sits until next July, but after that the Coalition appears likely to get the necessary six of eight independent and minor-party votes that will hold the balance of power in the new Senate.

But winning the necessary six votes in favour of Direct Action – which offers competitive government grants to reduce greenhouse emissions – could be much more difficult.

The Liberal Democratic party's David Leyonhjelm, set to win a Senate seat in NSW, told Guardian Australia he was "agnostic" about the science of global warming but "even if it is eventually confirmed government spending in Australia will not make the slightest bit of difference".

He said he would be voting for the carbon tax repeal and against Direct Action "unless the government offers some very significant concession that will make a big difference to the economy, for example lowering the company tax rate from 30% to 25%, or making a big reduction in the personal income tax rate, or possibly abandoning the alcopops tax and both of the last two increases in tobacco tax."

The government has already delayed a return to a budget surplus and any of the LDP's tax propositions would blow a large hole in government revenue.

Family First's Bob Day, set to take a seat in South Australia, said his party did not accept the science of global warming and would vote for the repeal and against Direct Action.

Clive Palmer, whose Palmer United party candidate in Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie, has been confirmed as the party's second senator – the party may win a third spot in Western Australia – said his senators would vote for the repeal but his party "needed more information" on Direct Action.

But the mining magnate, who is waiting for federal government environmental approval for his $8bn coalmine, rail and port project in Queensland's Galilee basin, added: "The evidence shows 97% of carbon emissions are natural and 3% are human so we probably need to look at what is happening in nature."

The DLP senator John Madigan has said he will vote for the repeal but he is concerned about the burden Direct Action puts on taxpayers. During the election campaign he proposed an entirely different approach.

"Instead of imposing a tax we should instead have a penalties scheme, whereby a company must, for example, reduce pollutants from 100% to, say, 75% within a defined time period, which is then broken down into yearly reduction targets," Madigan said.

"If that company fails to adhere to its annual target it must pay a financial penalty that would come straight out of its back pocket, not the consumer's."

The South Australian independent senator Nick Xenophon has said he won't vote for the carbon tax repeal until the Coalition agrees to change Direct Action to incorporate the intensity-based emissions trading scheme proposed by Frontier Economics.

The Motoring Enthusiasts party's likely Victorian senator, Ricky Muir, is declining to comment on policy until he has more information.

And if the PUP does win its third Senate seat in Western Australia, where the battle for the final Senate spot is between it, Labor and the Sport party, the prime minister will need the mining magnate's three votes to achieve the necessary six out of eight votes on every piece of legislation, unless he decides to negotiate with Labor or the Greens.

The Coalition is likely to have 33 seats in the new Senate, meaning it will need six of the likely eight crossbench votes to achieve the 39 votes needed to pass legislation in the 76-seat Senate.

Leyonhjelm said he was opposed to Abbott's planned "green army" to do environmental cleanups while working for the dole and to the carbon farming initiative – a Labor policy the Coalition intends to continue and expand – which he said was just a scheme to "pay farmers to plant trees they can't cut down for 100 years".

Abbott has said the carbon tax repeal will be his first piece of legislation when parliament resumes. He vowed to call a double dissolution election if it was blocked in the Senate.

But with a more friendly Senate just months away it is much more likely he will wait until next after July to remove Labor's tax – a move the power industry says means household power bills are unlikely to come down until July 2015.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/australia-climate-change-policy-vacuum

Tony Abbott's roads plan will lead us nowhere, transport advocates claim

Critics argue money would be better spent on key urban rail projects around Australia, which are now unlikely to proceed

Oliver Milman
theguardian.com, Wednesday 25 September 2013 19.27 AEST

The Coalition's pledge to "build the roads of the 21st century" and withdraw funding for rail projects is regressive and fails to tackle the issue of congestion, according to public transport advocates.

Critics point to the fact that public transport usage in Australia's major cities has increased by an average of 65% over the past decade, compared to a minimal rise in car usage.

Rail proponents claim that congestion is best fixed with an integrated plan that gives commuters options other than car use, rather than more Los Angeles-style highways.

"I think all but the most car-centric person would see that in modern growing cities, you can't move everybody around by road — that rail, particularly in inner-city areas, is much more efficient," said Daniel Bowen, a leading public transport advocate.

"It comes down to this: if you want more people on public transport, provide more public transport. If you want more people on the roads, build more roads. (Tony) Abbott is clearly backing the latter."

In April, the then-opposition leader stated that should the Coalition win power, it will "stick to its knitting" when it comes to infrastructure. "And the Commonwealth's knitting when it comes to funding infrastructure is roads," Abbott added.

This commitment to roads, which sweeps aside virtually all federal funding for rail projects, has become a key mantra for the Coalition since its 7 September victory, with "building roads for the 21st century" becoming a familiar ministerial catch cry.

The Coalition costings, released shortly before the election, make it clear that the word "infrastructure" could simply be substituted with "roads" for both brevity and accuracy. It lists 30 different road projects and just one rail plan – $180m over four years to build an inland freight line between Melbourne and Brisbane.

In all, $11.5bn has been pledged by the Coalition with not one dollar going to urban rail extensions or upgrades. Work on road upgrades has already begun, with Abbott last week unveiling the business case for the $1.5bn WestConnex project in Sydney. "I want to be known as an infrastructure prime minister and I want building the roads of the 21st Century to be a hallmark of my government," he said.

A further $6.7bn will go to fix the rather dilapidated Bruce Highway in Queensland, while $5.6bn will be spent on lengthening the Pacific Highway. There will be $1.5bn to help build the highly controversial east-west road link that will demolish houses and part of a park in Melbourne.

The government, along with backers such as the Business Council of Australia, claims that the roads will ease congestion, improve business productivity and free up state government budgets to be spent on rail projects. It estimates that the 33km WestConnex road will benefit the New South Wales economy to the tune of $20bn.

Abbott appears to have a long-standing scepticism of public transport. In his book, Battlelines, he states that even the "humblest person is king in his own car."

He adds: "In Australia's big cities, public transport is generally slow, expensive, not especially reliable and still a hideous drain on the ­public purse. Mostly, there just aren't enough people wanting to go from a particular place to a particular destination at a particular time to justify any vehicle larger than a car, and cars need roads."

Here are some of the key rail projects that are unlikely to get any federal cash under an Abbott government.

Brisbane Cross River Rail

The $4.4bn Cross River Rail project is listed by Infrastructure Australia as "ready to proceed". The hurdle, however, will be money.

The Queensland government wants $3.3bn of federal cash for the project, which would see 18km of rail run from Salisbury, under the Brisbane CBD, to Bowen Hills.

Infrastructure Australia has said that the rail line would help turn Brisbane into "Australia's third internationally competitive city".

The state government has remained upbeat, claiming that an increased federal commitment to fund Queensland roads will allow it more cash to spend on the project.

Perth Airport rail link

The Western Australian government has promised rail upgrades worth around $4bn, with the crown jewel being a $1.89bn airport rail link for domestic and international passengers.

The previous federal Labor government promised $500m for the airport link and Perth's light rail projects. The Western Australian premier, Colin Barnett, recently admitted that the airport rail link could now be delayed for several years.

Melbourne Metro

Another project assessed by Infrastructure Australia as "ready to proceed", the $9bn Metro rail initiative in Melbourne would see a 9km tunnel bored between South Kensington and South Yarra, replete with five stations.

The Coalition has withdrawn money from the budget that would be used to plan the project, placing a question mark over whether it will be completed to schedule.

Melbourne Airport rail link

Melburnians have long seethed that the only way to get to and from the city's airport is via the plum red Skybus or a car or taxi ride – complete with toll road if you're going via the CBD.

A rail link has long been mooted, with proposals released earlier this year for a project that would provide trains every 10 minutes to the airport, servicing an estimated six million people a year.

However, the Victorian government has prioritised a rail link to the smaller airport at Avalon and without Commonwealth help it appears unlikely the project will happen in the foreseeable future.

North West Rail Link

The NSW government plans to build the North West Rail Link, which will cost $8.3bn, by the end of 2019.

The rail line will run west from Chatswood to the "north west growth centre", west of Parklea. The state government has prioritised the link over the completion of the Parramatta to Epping section of track that the previous Labor federal government said it would help fund.

Barry O'Farrell, the New South Wales premier, has said the state will plough ahead regardless and build the line anyway, meaning that a lack of federal cash from the Coalition may not prove critical.

High-speed rail

An idea that has been mooted since the 1980s, the practicalities of constructing high-speed rail in Australia were laid out in a report released earlier this year that found it would cost $114bn to link Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Brisbane.

Both sides of politics balked at this cost but as the election approached, then prime minister Kevin Rudd embraced the idea, pledging to preserve the 1,748km corridor needed for the line and promising $52bn for its construction.

Abbott has taken a different approach, stating that he wants to fund infrastructure "for tomorrow, rather than in 40 years' time". High-speed rail, if started promptly, would be ready by 2030.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/abbott-road-plan-criticised

Indonesia sends 'loud and clear' message to Julie Bishop on asylum

Foreign minister emphatic that he will not accept measures to turn back boats if they breach his country's sovereignty

Bridie Jabour
theguardian.com, Wednesday 25 September 2013 17.33 AEST

Indonesia's foreign minister has told Australian foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, that his country will not co-operate with the Coalition if its asylum-seeker policy violates Indonesia's sovereignty.

In a private meeting at UN headquarters in New York this week, Marty Natalegawa told Bishop that Indonesia did not accept Coalition plans to turn boats back and buy up Indonesian fishermen's boats.

"We have reiterated that Indonesia cannot accept any Australian policy that would, in nature, violate Indonesia's sovereignty," he said, according to Indonesian media.

"I think the message has been conveyed loud and clear and has been understood well."

Natalegawa said Bishop had outlined Coalition proposals to stop people arriving by boat. "She also emphasised that measures should be adopted so that Indonesia's sovereignty is not violated," he said.

Bishop said she had explained to Natalegawa that Australia would be making changes to the law to "take away the product that the people smugglers are currently selling – and that is permanent residency in Australia".

When asked if it would be difficult to change Jakarta's opinion on the matter, Bishop instead criticised the Labor party for leaving "a complete mess in border protection".

"The current laws of the Labor government only encourage people smuggling, so there is a lot of work for us to do," she said.

Bishop denied there was any tension in the meeting. "Not at all. We spoke very warmly, we know each other well," she said.

Indonesia has always given a cool reception to Coalition proposals to turn the boats back to Indonesia, although Bishop told Guardian Australia in May that Indonesian officials had agreed in private to help Australia do so, despite their public protestations at the time.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/indonesia-message-bishop-asylum-seekers

Students and universities warn against scrapping student fees

Christopher Pyne's proposal to get rid of compulsory fees arouses fears for student services

Bridie Jabour
theguardian.com, Wednesday 25 September 2013 19.34 AEST

Students and universities have warned the Coalition against its proposal to abolish compulsory student fees, voicing concerns it could damage the international standing of Australian education and lead to critical services being scrapped.

The education minister, Christopher Pyne, announced he would get rid of compulsory student fees, scrap targets to increase the number of disadvantaged students in university and consider reintroducing caps on university places.

Belinda Robinson, the chief executive of the peak body for universities, Universities Australia, said the abolition of university student fees "didn't come as a huge surprise" but there were still concerns about the move.

"I think we will really need to work closely with the government to ensure the services that the fee pays for are continued in some way because these are things that not only enrich the campus experience of those who study at university but these are really critical services," she said.

Robinson said welfare services, financial advisory services and accommodation services were among the things the fees paid for.

"They are also important to us maintaining our international competitiveness as a destination of choice for international students. If these services are not provided you can imagine what international students and their families will think," she said.

"It will result in some quite considerable concern about the level of support that these students are going to receive when they come to Australia."

Pyne promised before the election not to reintroduce caps on student places at universities and Robinson emphasised he was only reviewing the system and had not committed to the move.

"A review doesn't equate to the reintroduction of caps and the government has made a number of strong statements about being a consultative government, about not making unilateral decisions without consultation so we take some comfort from that and we're very happy to participate in this review," she said.

When asked if she had supported the uncapping of university places when it happened, Robinson said she "accepted" the policy and the intent around the policy which was not to prevent people coming to university because of their socio-economic background.

"That's important for the [current] government too, governing for everyone and making sure nobody gets left behind," she said.

Robinson said the targets for people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university and people aged 24 to 34 having degrees were "pretty much" being met and the abolition of them was not a key issue.

The abolition of a cap on university places led to about 190,000 extra students, according to Labor party estimates, but Pyne wants to review whether it has affected the quality of education in the universities.

"You must be living in a bubble ... if you think that there is not an issue in universities about whether there are quality issues about the extraordinary number of students being enrolled," he said on local ABC radio in Adelaide.

"We need to review the demand-driven system of university places because there is some evidence ... that quality is suffering to achieve quantity."

The president of Lismore and External Students Association (Lexsa) at Southern Cross University, Benjamin Bullivant, said scrapping the fees put crucial services in jeopardy, and in Lismore an out-of-hours crisis service was funded by the fees.

He said the removal of the targets and recapping of numbers would affect mature-age students and people with mental health issues and disabilities.

"If you remove the targets, you remove the opportunity for them to get an education and possibly better jobs," he said.

When asked what his message to Pyne would be, he said: "You should really reconsider your approach to tertiary education … These cuts could have a devastating effect, an impact which could be irreversible for many years to come on students who are low socio-economic and students who are at rural and regional universities."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/students-universities-scrapping-student-fees

Still they're all immensely more qualified and able than you.

I don't think rail will save congestion issues. It's not like in densely populated cities like in Paris and London where you have a tube station within walking distance of your home and workplace, in Australia we live on comparatively large blocks of land and public transport links are spread out and not the most convenient option to use during searing hot humid summers, not to mention local bus services are very poor and any investment in rail would need to be duplicated improving local bus transport to service rail nodes.

I certainly recognise funding is needed for light rail projects particularly in Brisbane but tunnel projects like the TransApex which will divert inbound traffic under and around the CBD rather than through it will ease peak hour congestion and this will provide immediate benefits for the economy and environment. Mostly what you need is a holistic approach to public transport whereby not a single mode of transport is championed rather an integrated approach is taken weighing up the pros and cons of cars, buses, rails, bikeways etc and their appropriateness to the urban landscape and community needs.

Well you have Leyonhjelm who is a qualified vet, has an MBA and law degree, runs a business.

Palmer - well we all know about his achievements, he is certainly no retard.

Sports party guy - civil engineer, a member of senate.

So what are your achievements?

Wait...so because these guys have 'achieved more' than someone on here you can dismiss that individual's opinion?

Is rusty just a batfink multi?

Isn't that what he's doing? He's just calling these people retarded and stupid because they have a different opinion.

And I didn't dismiss his opinion I just said these particular candidates are more qualified and probably more worthy of holding public office. Being an armchair critic who shoots down political representatives from a keyboard just aren't fit to run for public office.

Honestly, the guy that is representing the motoring party sounds like a mental degenerate and the idea that he's going to earn $200,000 a year under his Senate tenure is absolutely absurd and obscene.

Well I think that the Greens get paid $200k for their senate positions is absurd and obscene and if there are nine of them that's nearly two million taxpayer dollars getting sucked into a black hole to delay progress and watch their irritating arsey rants on TV. But that's democracy.

Say what you like about the Greens but at least you know where they stand and their policies. "Durr...I liek vroom-vrooms and goin' fast" is not a policy.

Well you can be agnostic about the implications of climate change without denying the scienfitic consensus that it is real and happening. There doesn't appear to be solid empirical fact we are in an ecological emergency and remember there are zealots on both sides and not just the skeptics.

Regarding guns Leyonhjelm has a point, knives also kill people but that doesn't mean we should ban knives or resort to plastic cutlery. Switerzland has liberal gun laws and doesn't have any major gun crime issues, the problem appears to be cultural/social and not the weapons themselves, but copying America's gun culture is not something we should follow.

Zeroing in on singular issues doesn't veto an MP's entire party agenda, there's good and bad in all parties.