Looks like we'll have another term of the labor governmnet running the show.

So of their major policy announcements which ones do you think will never get going.

We have

Sydney train link
Brisbane train link
NBN
Water buyback

Will they budget be in surplus in 2013
Will the mining tax increase?
how much will the carbon tax be?
will an East Timorese processing centre be built?
Will we have a 30% fishing no go zones
Will the pokie limits be introduced

What major promises have been made do you think will never be implemented???

If the first Government to see its majority wiped out after one term in over 75 years decides to go on and try and govern - it will be an insult to us all.

Losing a majority after just one term simply shows you are not good enough.

That's not happened in our lifetime before!!

Shows us just how bad they were!!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 6:40pm:

No everyone would like to see that.
And seeing everyone will be paying for this(Abbott eventually wants his scheme taxpayer funded) most people want such a scheme to be the same amount for all.
This argument that higher earners need more is just crap.
As you yourself have stated Andrei higher earners are higher educated and therefore more in control of their desitiny, so working with these undisputable facts it stands to reason a higher income couple can save and plan whilst also factoring in the public payment so therefore suffer no economic hardship in having a family.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 6:40pm:



Just like you don't like your taxes going to the unemployed, I don't like my taxes going to parental leave. You shouldn't have to be paid to take care of your baby, just do it, women have been ever since they joined the workforce.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:09pm:



But that's not remotely the case.
Back when I was an Australian PAYE worker, my entire bonus and a large portion of my salary was taxed at over 40%.

Lower income workers do not see a single dollar of their salary taxed at that amount.

I also dont believe in equating dole payments with maternity leave.

People out of work are out of work, they are looking to get back in - or they should be.

People who are on maternity have not left their job, they are having a family and need the support for a time when they intend to go back into the same role paying that sound amount.

They are chalk and cheese as examples.

Dole payments should be base level payments for everyone. Including people on $200k.

Incidentally when I was made redundant in 2009, I had a three month period  before I started my new role.
I asked about dole payments and was told I had too large a payout to be allowed anything from the Government.

Bloody shafted again.

Quote my dad "Labor Governments have never done anything for our family son"

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:13pm:

Then you want to get a different accountant  or really, stop bitching your on heaps and review your spending on crap you dont really need 
Again from memory the 40% rate kicks in over 150K
You do OK from what I know of you from these boards Andrei as I do it's really just a philosophical argument for us, but for some it really is pay the electricity or eat

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:40pm:


Nah mate 17th is my departure date.
Have a safe flight and enjoy Canada

Well now.  It does certainly seem that workchoices  (No choices) really will be dead after all, does it not?.  I will put some flowers on the grave.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:47pm:


This forum's quality of posts

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 6:40pm:



Actually it really shows what total flippin cretins people can be.
The last government to get booted after one term was in 1929.
Any idea what happened in 1929?
Yes, the GFC of the olden days, but this time around we were lucky we had a government that made the right calls, at the right times and protected us, and imbeciles from the right harp on about debt like wind up dolls without an original thought ever passing between their ears.

I realise you are not a very nice person Andrei, having watched you take great personal pride in your callous selfishness, but I now see you apply that same pride to your lack of comprehension of anything other than silly Liberal sloganeering that you hear, and then parrot.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:09pm:



couldnt agree more pansi.. and we never do that.. the younger generation just seems to whinge and they get help.. its welfare no matter which way you try to look at it... sorry to all those that think paid maternity leave is a given.. but thousands did it without any hand out whats so tough about life today... during the war it must have been hell but they did it without a sc ap of help and no whinging..seems to me the more this generation get the more they want.. lets not forget the freebee computers they are all sweating on.and voted for..next it will be.  well you encouraged us to have the children.. now we want the free childcare.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:47am:

Abbott says parental leave is a benefit of employment, so it should relate to income. I say, if it's a benefit of employment, the employer should pay. Not the taxpayer.

If the government is paying more to the rich, then they're essentially saying the children of the rich are worth more. Is that Australian?

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:59am:


The point is, do you have a limit of how much you want to handicap the hardest workers, and the best qualified people?  Or do you want to drag the rewards for effort down to the point where a garbage collector is the pinacle of Australian achievement?  Or do you want to suck the blood out of employers to the (not too distant) point where it`s inviable to opperate in Australia?

Is there an end to the greed of the laziest?

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:18am:

I guess there's no curing John Howard's middle-class welfare bludgers.

mantra wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:28am:



Mantra, how could you miss such an obvious point?

Dnarever wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:52am:



Of course the tax, or cost would be passed on to consumers. How else could it be?  Just a step closer to the State owned Generations.

I think the NBN will fizzle out when people just won't pay the large
cost to get connected.
Optic fiber is expensive to lay in areas where there are too few customers.
I can't see it as a viable business model except in big cities.

Imagine laying out 100 kilometers of optic fiber to a small town
with say 20 customers?
How long would it take to get the money back & how
much would they be charged?

Quote:


No it won't.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 11:37am:



It won't necessarily satisfy any commercial viability nonsense.

How can commercial viability be nonsense ????????????????/

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 11:49am:

oversimplistic reply roads are not old technology by the time, this is laid out if it ever is completed it will be outmoded

. You only have to look at how big the countries is to get the point where not Singapore and South Korea were not the UK we are the size of the United States 

that is only my opinion

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 1:16pm:


I'm sure that, in your dotage, you'll want a better class of servant bathing you, spoon-feeding you and wiping your snooty nose and backside - even if they think such is beneath them, eh!?

bwood1946 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 11:54am:

Fibre is very basic infrastructure. It seems all shiny and new to most of us, but that's what people in the industry tell me.

Techniques for using fibre are advancing rapidly. Laser frequencies, modulation, keying and something called phase-shift have been mentioned, but the technicalities are frankly well beyond me.

Hence the tenfold increase in potential that drew the mirth of the opposition when announced. In context, that revelation was about as surprising as the realisation that a Ferrari can go faster than a model T Ford. Same infrastructure, different technology.

The potential life of the NBN is five decades or more. Nobody really knows the limits of what fibre can do and how long it will last.

By the time fibre is obsolete, http:// may have been replaced by bmus:// (Beam me up, Scotty)  But I suspect we'll all be long dead by then.

Is the potential benefit worth the cost? I think it's worth a try. Others evidently differ.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 1:50pm:

The plan is to decommission the copper when premises are connected to fibre. The premises get the fibre and the occupants buy whatever services they want. There's no indication that more expensive services will be forced on anyone, but the occupants won't have the option of staying with what they had.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 1:56pm:


So wholesale increases in internet costs will be the norm then?

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:03pm:


Assuming the ALP get in and the NBN goes ahead, then the investment will be recovered from the consumers.  At last estimate the cost of the NBN was $47b; given labors propensity to underestimate cost and bungle policy implementation, plenty of evidence of that in the last 3 years alone, it would be reasonable to expect a significant cost blow out. 

The cost will be passed on either directly via the ISP or via increased taxes; someone has to pay for it.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 11:37am:


Listen David know all.
If it was your money you wouldn't spend it.
Guess what - it is your money - tax money.
I don't want my money wasted on 1000s of kilometers of optic fiber
that is only being used by a few kids watching porno.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:25pm:

Just because that's your main use for the 'net, don't assume the same of everyone.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:42pm:


Australia is a vast continent, with a relatively small and ubiquitous population.

The fair provision of accessible essential public services and infrastructure are not really conducive to highly profitable economies of scale!

Hence, the private sector has been unwilling and/or unable to deliver anywhere near adequate and affordable high-tech telecommunications services outside major metropolitan areas!

Clearly, the private sector has already failed all objective socio-economic tests and benchmarks on this!

This should have been obvious, as far back as when the dogmatic Libs recklessly hocked Telstra (or part thereof - and definitely the wrong parts thereof)...

So, we are back to a predictable situation, where: the private sector is expecting to be subsidised with more Corporate WEALTHfare!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:56pm:


Trust a right whinger, to reduce all socio-economic factors down to dollars and no common sense...

Equitist wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:53pm:

Actually, I think it was Labor that started the Telstra sellout. Howard just took it to a ludicrous extreme.

The market has failed to deliver appropriate telecommunications infrastructure. It just isn't profitable enough (the much-loved Commercial Viability article of the Market Capitalist faith) in most of the nation. Rectifying market failure is a responsibility of government.

A responsible government proposes to honour that. A potential government in waiting doesn't.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:


You're right david....Keating did the original 1/3 stock sale of Telstra (which did provide a lot of cash when we needed it)..
But NO government should have allowed the total sales to go beyond 49%....which Howard did.....and which was an incredibly stupid thing to do....

Quote:


WHY LIE???

Are you afraid the truth will be insufficient to support your opinions?

"Fibre to 90 per cent of premises: $26.6 billion

Last 10 per cent of premises: $5.3 billion
Backhaul (connecting networks together): $3.3 billion
Overhead: $2 billion
Out tuning (with 2.5 per cent inflation): $5.6 billion

Total: $42.8 billion"

Now another lie the opposition has been pushing hard on, and all the whiners swallowed hook line and sinker is the government is pouring 43billion in.
WRONG!!!

The government investment is 27 billion, the rest comes from private investment.

So it is a big investment in our country, and in our future, so is it worth it??

The Drum on the ABC has a comprehensive article that lays out all the salient facts and does not take political sides, so check it out for yourself, here;

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/20/2989172.htm

So I will leave you with this quote from that article, it sums up pretty well the Opposition alternative.


"Then there's the alternative. Opponents to slam the Government's proposal for being drawn up on the back of a napkin. Well if the $25 million implementation study represents a napkin it's tricky to say what the $6 billion alternative scheme was drawn up on. Pouring $6 billion into a rotting copper network and virtually-unfeasible wireless network to achieve peak speeds that the Japanese were rolling out nine years ago is a rather depressing vision of Australia's technological future. As a value proposition, you be the judge."

mozzaok wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:23pm:


Just watching the Insiders now and a great point on the cost of the NBN was that back in the day the railways were a massive investment at the time.
A nice comparision I thought, anyone want to dispute that the rail network was a waste?

mozzaok wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:23pm:


Given that the NBN costs are ESTIMATES only and that there has been no cost benefit analysis nor viability analysis and that there private sector involvement is ASSUMED and not actually in place Id say the current estimate of $43B is no more than a guess.

ANd given that nothing the labor govt did came in anywhere near on budget or acheived any of its stated goals why shoudl we expect such a massive project to do so? That would be silly.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:47pm:

Treasury estimates no more than guesses? Your biases are showing.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:26pm:

So you acknowledge that a private company couldn't have avoided waste under the circumstances. That's unusually honest for around here.

Could any single company have handled the workload? Could they have delivered in the timeframe?

Quote:


Sorry Longy, but you know not of what you speak.

The description of "an aging, rotting, copper network", is not hyperbole, but an accurate description of what we have.

Do you maintain a T model ford as your daily drive?
Of course not, most people recognise the inherent value of having a modern vehicle that delivers comfort, safety, and reliability, and it is a sound principle that makes them take that decision.
The NBN is replacing our country's T model copper network, with a state of the art fibre network that will deliver both reliability, and functionality, that NO COPPER network, ever could, irrespective of how much you spent on it.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:57pm:


no company can avoid waste. this isnt an either/or question. its ia relative one. even an incompetent and inefficient private company would not produce the levels of waste the govt did with the BER.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 4:36pm:

Intelligent and knowledgeable people, with access to far better information than you or I, say otherwise.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:23pm:


Excuse my error, we would essentially be splitting hairs there.  Happy enough to call it $43b?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:28pm:


Absolutely.  How many different gauges did Australia have as a consequence of states not been able to agree on the standard?

Colossal stuff up and considerable waste of money.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:02pm:


Absolutely!!! just ask Greece....

qikvtec wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:10pm:


The best example I can use is the bridge over the river murray at Yarrawonga. two state govts were involved and both started their ends of the bridge... AT DIFFERENT locations and different elevations. This stupid bridge now has an odd bend to compensate for the fact that this was not only a govt project but a TWO GOVT project. two layters of arrogance and incompetence trying to (literally) meet in the middle and missing by a very large margin.

Why we allowed Greece into the EU is still a mystery to me.

It's a beautiful country, I went there a lot as a kid but its a banana republic in everyway.
It has an absurd social system and expects Britain, Germany and the Netherlands to bail them out all the time.

Same with Portugal and Ireland.

Madness.

The amusing thing about this Super Broadband Network is that if it is ever up and running, very few of the population will be able to afford the download speeds which labor promotes…….companies/big business yes, the average user NO.  Do labor idiots really think that the very fast download speeds are going to be free?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:32pm:

I guess it comes down to who's most credible. I'll go with Treasury. 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 6:39pm:


very true. Their record for modelling and prediction is so bad that frankly the opinion of you taxi driver has a higher success rate. Remember the 11% uneployment rate they predicted for this year? the $315B+ debt?

and there's more...