Mediawatch discussed the tone down of language used by both Turnbull and Baird regarding the recent incident. Apparently it's on advice from agencies such as the AFP that the whole "death cult" and "team australia" talk from Abbott was too divisive and it was making their job working with the muslim community more difficult.

What was said on Q&A was basically an extension of that. Discussion around the balance of funds between enforcement and community engagement is something that needs to be address (2% of the funds are going to community engagement apparently).

Not sure why I'm bothering because there are a lot of intolerant people on here who are either selfish or have an axe to grind against a religion/race/culture. People hear what they want to hear.

Mediawatch discussed the tone down of language used by both Turnbull and Baird regarding the recent incident. Apparently it's on advice from agencies such as the AFP that the whole "death cult" and "team australia" talk from Abbott was too divisive and it was making their job working with the muslim community more difficult.

What was said on Q&A was basically an extension of that. Discussion around the balance of funds between enforcement and community engagement is something that needs to be address (2% of the funds are going to community engagement apparently).

Not sure why I'm bothering because there are a lot of intolerant people on here who are either selfish or have an axe to grind against a religion/race/culture. People hear what they want to hear.

Yes yes yes. I saw the analysis too and it's obvious Turnbull is listening to what the AFP and ASIO et al are telling him. Good on him. Probably a good thing to do by all accounts.

That wasn't the point. The point is the lack of balance on the ABC. There wasn't any last night.

Even I can see that and I'm a left wing loony bordering on being a socialist.

Yes they should have someone from Reclaim Australia and the Socialist Alliance every week so we can hear the loopy views of both sides.

^^^ Blah blah blah.

Doesn't the ABC charter say, in effect, no bias, no position taking, no preaching?

At least give the appearance of balance by sticking one person with a different viewpoint on there.

Not sure why I'm bothering because there are a lot of intolerant people on here

People hear what they want to hear.

Are you aware who Ken Wyatt is?
Not right wing enough for you?
Maybe someone from the United Patriots Front or One Nation would suit?

:lol: You can't make a single post without mentioning right wing can you?

It's not a sensible point. We're seen as demonizing them and being racist for not putting their needs higher than others.

This post of yours essentially reinforces mine in that we are 'responsible' for improving their welfare. We are responsible for getting them jobs.

Treating Muslims differently to anyone else is the problem. We're so bloody scared of offending them in this country due to years of reinforcement from parliament to the media that we're racist and intolerant that most people are probably not interested in the drama.

I think we're afraid of the elephant in the room. People get narky about stereotypes but we've had a lot of issues over the last 5 years specifically with Muslim radicals.

At the risk of sounding intolerant Mr McJules explain to me how it's OK for the head of the Muslim religion in Australia to not speak English in his speech despite having been here for 18 years?

What was one of the things he said? Something along the lines of "if you don't like it leave"? Does that extend to the language?

Maybe there's old codgers who have come over on family reunion tickets etc for who it's all too hard at their late stage in life but if that's the case don't put yourself on national telly and say "assimilate or go home".

Bit of a joke really.

They already are treated differently - there have been numerous studies done that indicate muslims especially among others are constant targets of racism and prejudice. That is just fact.

There are plenty of famous studies where people send out identical resumes, with the only difference being the person's name. Some were sent out with "anglo" names, some with "muslim" names etc etc. Muslims had to send far more resumes before a call back.

Pretending that muslims (and other minorities) don't face discrimination, and that they are somehow "protected" from criticism is just inaccurate.

Why does it actually matter? Plenty of first generation immigrants are too old to learn the language. It doesn't actually mean anything.

Why does it actually matter? Plenty of first generation immigrants are too old to learn the language. It doesn't actually mean anything.

How does it not matter? How do they tell mechanics/plumbers etc. what their problem is? Do they not say a word to the cashier when they buy goods?

When I was in Germany in 2012 I tried to speak German everywhere I went. Usually the cashier would smile and patiently help me out. Some of the others on my tour refused to speak German and instead spoke in English. I remember in Dresden some of the girls getting a terrible meal for refusing to speak German.

As for this specific case it's a huge issue that the leader doesn't speak English. How is he able to speak to non-Arabic speakers? How is he able to spread his message to English speaking people. It's easy to look at the bloke and say 'what effort has he made to integrate into Australia'?

Do you really think that he can literally not speak "a word" of English? He was probably shitting himself at the prospect of being put in front of a nationally televised press conference and thought it better to have a translator lest he mangle his English and say the wrong thing.

You could do a study on how muslims treat white people and come up with similar results, depending on who you survey. Do you not feel that Muslims are somewhat responsible for their perception? It's harsh but kiwis get the same treatment. I mean as NZ born my colleagues are always reminding me of the shit that some of my birth-countrymen get up to. The only people who can stop the negative perceptions are the people creating the negative perceptions.

I'm not pretending that they don't face these things. One of my seniors is from Bosnia and had trouble getting his foot in the door when he graduated. I honestly don't think it's any different in any country. Yet people pretend like this is a local problem.

I've also worked with people of non-English speaking backgrounds who could not understand my directions on site. Luckily it didn't lead to problems but it certainly can.

If you can't pass a year 9 English exam, you should be deported. That goes for native born Australians also.

In 18 years if you haven't got basic English down you're doing something wrong.

I agree with Muz, the perception is bad.

Yeah except it is not muslims that hold the levers of power in our society. Try and get a job here if you have an "ethnic" sounding name other than Italian or greek.

"Muslims responsible for their perception"? What do you mean by that? What are individual muslims responsible for except themselves? That is the very definition of discrimination - projecting your thoughts about what muslims believe onto individuals because they happen to be muslim.

Do we blame all catholics for the IRA?

Are you seriously equating the banter NZ people cop to the discrimination non-whites face? What world do you live in? When do New Zealanders get assaulted or targeted for abuse because of being from NZ?

"People pretend like this is a local problem?" It is a problem that exists here. It doesn't mean that the problem is unique to Australia. What relevance is that?

To give you some personal experience - I have Italian background, and have at times had a bushy beard. My complexion can be dark-ish when I am tanned, and My hair colour is dark brown/black. I have on a number of occasions had drunk idiots (or people just being arseholes) verbally abuse me or try to start sh*t because they thought I was muslim/arab

Now if I have copped that on a few occasions, imagine what it is like for people who are obviously "muslim looking".

There is no legal requirement for anyone to speak english. Even in court or parliament. It's only the de facto official language. I agree it's not a great look that he doesn't speak much (I'd be surprised if he couldn't go to a cafe and order a coffee) english. Like Azza said, I was under the impression that there was no "head of the muslim religion" in Australia though.

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

Remember that bloke Sheikh Al Hilali who said women in bikinis deserved to be raped? :lol:

Remember that bloke Sheikh Al Hilali who said women in bikinis deserved to be raped? :lol:

The way we're going it will be the Chinese who own everything soon.

I deal with more non-anglo's than anglo's in my line of work........



I mean muslims are responsible for their immediate friends and families. Just like we are. We have the responsibility to say to our family/mates when they're being idiots to say "stop being a f*ckwit and grow up".

I find religion backing away from radicals to be weak.



Depends who you ask ;)



I have an Australian accent so most people assume I'm not a Kiwi. I don't have one of those disgusting tattoos all over me. It's actually quite disgusting what some Australian's say about Kiwis. I wouldn't call a lot of it banter.



Well look at the rest of the world. Look at Saudi Arabia. They won't even take in members of their own religion as refugees. Yet somehow the white-apologetics in this country seem to think we're racist bogans for our employment trends. Perspective is interesting.



Drunk bogans are not a representation of Australia though, much like all Muslims aren't responsible for the actions of a few.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership isn't about trade and it's certainly not about free trade. It's about entrenching the interests of major corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens, writes Ian Verrender.

Where is Cleisthenes when you really need him?

The man considered the father of democracy would be aghast at the turn of events last week, when 12 countries around the Pacific Rim gathered together and happily agreed to sell out their citizens, to elevate the interests of global corporations above their own sovereign law.

Before he rose to power, half a millennium before the birth of Christ, Athens was presided over by an aristocratic class that governed for the wealthy alone. Cleisthenes delivered power to the people, a concept that has formed the basis of modern Western states for the past several hundred years.

That could all be about to change, courtesy of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

It's been variously lauded as a foundation stone for our future prosperity, a triumph for free trade and something about which we can boast to our children and grandchildren.

It is none of those things.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is more about protectionism than trade. It was conceived as a regional defence pact, to corral Pacific Rim nations into a formal bloc in an effort to counter the rising military and economic might of China.

Driven by the United States, what measures were devoted to trade overwhelmingly were focused on exactly the opposite; extending monopoly powers of American corporations and maintaining tariffs and quotas for US farmers unable to compete in a free trade world.

Only a politician could be so cynical.

But it is the inclusion of the dreaded Investor State Dispute Settlement clauses that is of most concern for they are a direct assault on national sovereignty and the democratic rights of those who make up a nation.

A corporation is a legal entity run by appointed individuals whose primary responsibility is maximising benefits to the company. Generally, that is achieved by maximising profits for shareholders, for which management and directors are handsomely rewarded.

While a company is bound to abide by the laws in the countries in which it operates, shareholders and shareholder returns are all that matters. National sovereignty and democracy are only a concern when they interfere with earnings.

It would be a fair assumption that these clauses - that allow corporations to launch secret legal proceedings against nations with democratically elected governments in outside jurisdictions - weren't dreamt up by a bureaucrat slogging away in the bowels of some government department.

For while free trade negotiations are conducted in secret, business lobby groups - and a host of other vested interests - are consulted. Judging by the proliferation of these clauses in trade deals, clearly they are high on the business lobby agenda.

It's worth noting the extent of global corporate skulduggery that has been unearthed in recent years on tax avoidance and profit shifting.

The International Monetary Fund for years has been desperately trying to devise a system that could force multinationals to meet their basic tax obligations. Each time the G20 leaders gather, they loudly bemoan the power of giant corporations and the level of legal obfuscation that denies them much needed tax revenue to provide education and health services for their citizens.

Then they happily sign away their rights in a so-called trade pact.

There's an old saying in the legal profession that justice goes to the one with the deepest pockets. There is no better example right now of just how these clauses can be abused than the case by tobacco giant Philip Morris against Australia.

Incensed at the plain packaging legislation launched by the Rudd government, it fought all the way to the High Court of Australia. It went down in a screaming heap in every action.

That should have been the end of it. Fearing this could be the beginning of a global push, it then concocted a means by which it could launch further legal action. Philip Morris sold its Australian subsidiary to its Hong Kong operation, which conveniently was able to access an ISDS clause in a decades old free trade agreement we had signed.

This is the same company whose senior executives stood up in Congress in 1994 and swore under oath alongside six other corporate tobacco heads that there was no proof that cigarettes were addictive.

In that hearing, despite earlier denials, Philip Morris was forced to admit that its earlier studies into nicotine addiction had been suppressed.

Its case against Australia is being heard in secret, somewhere in Singapore, which so far has cost taxpayers more than $50 million.

Australia has a robust and open legal system that is independent of government and second to none.

It is one of the major attractions for foreign investors. There is absolutely no need and certainly no justification for subverting and diminishing its power.

If the TPP finally is ratified by all 12 member states, Australia will forfeit rights on a number of fronts. And highly litigious US corporations are likely to challenge on any number of issues, particularly around tax.

Who could forget former Rio Tinto boss Tom Albanese's argument that the imposition of a Resources Rent Tax was a "sovereign risk"? This from the man who proposed selling control of Australia's most profitable iron ore territory to the Chinese Government.

And as Macrobusiness commentator Leith van Onselen pointed out last week, while Australia's ban on foreign investors snapping up existing housing will remain because it has been grandfathered, it would not be allowed under TPP rules. New Zealand will have no hope of implementing such a ban.

The tragedy in all this is that anyone who has been even slightly critical of this deal has been dismissed as "anti-trade", whatever that means. A little like "un-Australian".

Let's be clear. Free trade is a goal that should be pursued. Australia has taken a lead, reducing protection across the economy which has driven efficiency and productivity gains. Our starting point in global negotiation is that other nations should do as we have.

As the Productivity Commission has found, however, free trade agreements - especially bilateral deals - do very little in improving trade. In fact, they can be downright damaging. The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, signed a decade ago, now costs about $US53 billion in lost trade per annum.

Regional trade deals should be superior to bilateral deals. But the TPP isn't about trade and certainly not free trade. It's about entrenching the interests of major corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens.

It's about entrenching power and governance among the wealthy, the same injustice that Cleisthenes fought to overthrow.

You may deal with non-anglos more than anglos. But I can guarantee you that for the vast majority, the people making employment decisions are overwhelmingly "anglo".

Whilst we are all responsible for our families, this can only go so far. If you don't know what is happening how would you know? It's like the families of mass-shooters in the USA. They often don't know someone has "turned" until it is too late.

Of course drunk bogans aren't representative of all Australians. But it doesn't mean that they don't exist. Every few weeks there is a new Youtube video on the news about some racist tirade on public transport. My point was not to judge Australia, but to just acknowledge that minorities do have a harder time than the mainstream day-today because of discrimination.

But that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the racism that does exist and try to deal with it.

NBN would go back to fibre optic under Australian Labor Party, says Jason Clare

Opposition spokesman on communications Jason Clare has indicated that Labor would ramp up the number of homes connected using fibre-optic cabling as part of the $56 billion national broadband network if it wins the next federal election.

The Coalition under then-communications minister Malcolm Turnbull, who is now Prime Minister, changed the NBN to use a range of cheaper and slower technologies including fibre-to-the-node, which relies on the existing copper phone line to deliver broadband.

Labor's national platform in July stated that the party would now be forced to adopt a two-stage rollout if elected - a move many fairly assumed meant it would complete the Coalition's NBN before upgrading the connections to be fully-fibred.

But in a speech given to the CommsDay Summit in Melbourne on Wednesday morning, Mr Clare said a vote for Labor would be a vote for a fibre to the premise NBN.

"Fibre to the node will be gone," he said. "It's not a question of if this will happen, it's when it will happen and how it will be done.

"If you vote for the Labor Party at the next election you will be voting for more fibre."

Mr Clare declined to release more policy details. But sources close to the party said it meant Labor would make the contractual changes required to deploy more fibre-optic cabling across Australia if it won government. It previously wanted 93 per cent of premises to be directly connected to the NBN using fibre to the premise technology.

The sources said such a move would occur gradually because the locations already slated for fibre to the node would already have their deployments locked in. But rollouts planned after that would move to using more FTTP.

They also suggested the Hybrid-fibre Coaxial (HFC) cables that are currently used for Pay TV services may be kept given the billions of dollars being spent on upgrading them.

RISK OF DELAY

The current NBN project predicts that just 20 per cent of Australian homes and businesses will get fibre to the premise, with 38 per cent getting fibre to the node or basement and 34 per cent getting upgrades to their hybrid fibre-coaxial, or HFC, connections, which are now delivering pay TV.

The move would come with a risk of delay - the NBN under Labor consistently missed rollout targets due to lengthy construction delays and worker shortages. Mr Turnbull has said this would also result in years of delays and tens of billions of dollars in extra funding requirements.

But Mr Clare said the Coalition's reliance on copper networks for the NBN meant that in some locations, such as Newcastle and the Central Coast, more than 90 per cent of copper pairs needed to be fixed - a process the telecommunications industry calls "remediation".

He cited unnamed contracting sources, who said up to 15 per cent of copper lines in those regions had to be partly replaced.

"Another contractor told me in Campbelltown in Sydney that NBN has had to recently replace almost 3 kilometres of old copper with new copper," he said.

Last month, NBN told Fairfax Media that almost none of the phone lines in its Newcastle trial sites had to be fixed.

http://www.afr.com/technology/nbn-would-go-back-to-fibre-optic-under-australian-labor-party-says-jason-clare-20151013-gk8fih