Baloo said:
Megaphone diplomacy at it's worst. So far, so bad for the government, it really is amateur hour at the moment.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Megaphone diplomacy at it's worst. So far, so bad for the government, it really is amateur hour at the moment.
Maybe we could just give China a couple of patrol boats and see if that helps to mend relations.bullus_hit said:
I was interested to hear on the radio today, on ABC in the country, that the Libs have offered the states 'infrastructure bonus money' if they sell of public assets.
I have to say that I was shocked at this, and found it pretty disappointing.
While I don't know all the correct labels, I am one who feels that the Govt having a stake in assets essential to the public is a really important thing. It also reminds me of China, where the Govt makes sure it has a stake in pretty much everything, but here we are with a Govt actively trying to bribe states into getting rid of assets.
It just doesn't make sense to me...
I have to say that I was shocked at this, and found it pretty disappointing.
While I don't know all the correct labels, I am one who feels that the Govt having a stake in assets essential to the public is a really important thing. It also reminds me of China, where the Govt makes sure it has a stake in pretty much everything, but here we are with a Govt actively trying to bribe states into getting rid of assets.
It just doesn't make sense to me...
Baloo said:
A little insight into how Australia is now seen on the world stage. We couldn't be going backwards faster.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029442.400-australia-cementing-status-as-climate-badboy.html#.UpXWXcRgdtF
Got this letter from Australian Power and Gas yesterday. Looks as if the power companies are bumping up their prices in expectation that the carbon tax will be repealed. :spin :spin :spin 
Tigers of Old said:Got this letter from Australian Power and Gas yesterday. Looks as if the power companies are bumping up their prices in expectation that the carbon tax will be repealed. :spin :spin :spin
Wow, that is a pretty obvious one indeed ToO.
What a sham!
Who cares, this internetz thingy isn't going to last anyway. We should get a monorail instead.
Coalition 'unlikely to hit national broadband network deadline'
Leaked briefing to Abbott government also cuts revenue projections by up to 30%
The government's 2016 delivery deadline for the national broadband network looks likely to be blown out, according to a leaked internal NBN Co document.
The coalition has promised to deliver 25 megabits per second (MBPS) broadband services to all homes by 2016, but a brief to the incoming government, obtained by Fairfax Media, says construction and technical issues mean that may not happen.
"There are a number of conditions that will impact on NBN Co's ability to undertake a volume (fibre-to-the-node) network rollout," the report says.
"Given the complexity of these conditions, it is unlikely that NBN Co will meet the 2016 deadline to upgrade the fixed network to enable Australians to have minimum download speeds of 25MBPS."
In addition to raising issues about timing, the document also cuts revenue projections by up to 30% by 2021.
A Senate hearing this week was told by communications secretaries that NBN Co will need to lower its revenue projections because copper can't match the speeds of 250-1000 MBPS of fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP).
The Abbott government campaigned to replace Labor's FTTP model for the cheaper fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) option that will rely on Telstra's ageing copper network to connect homes and businesses.
But while FTTN is estimated to be at least $15bn cheaper and two years faster to build, the hearing was told NBN Co will need to lower its revenue projections as copper can't match the speeds of 250-1000 MBPS of fibre-to-the-premises.
Speeds on FTTN are expected to be 25-100 MBPS.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/29/coalition-unlikely-hit-hit-national-broadband-network-deadline
Coalition 'unlikely to hit national broadband network deadline'
Leaked briefing to Abbott government also cuts revenue projections by up to 30%
The government's 2016 delivery deadline for the national broadband network looks likely to be blown out, according to a leaked internal NBN Co document.
The coalition has promised to deliver 25 megabits per second (MBPS) broadband services to all homes by 2016, but a brief to the incoming government, obtained by Fairfax Media, says construction and technical issues mean that may not happen.
"There are a number of conditions that will impact on NBN Co's ability to undertake a volume (fibre-to-the-node) network rollout," the report says.
"Given the complexity of these conditions, it is unlikely that NBN Co will meet the 2016 deadline to upgrade the fixed network to enable Australians to have minimum download speeds of 25MBPS."
In addition to raising issues about timing, the document also cuts revenue projections by up to 30% by 2021.
A Senate hearing this week was told by communications secretaries that NBN Co will need to lower its revenue projections because copper can't match the speeds of 250-1000 MBPS of fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP).
The Abbott government campaigned to replace Labor's FTTP model for the cheaper fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) option that will rely on Telstra's ageing copper network to connect homes and businesses.
But while FTTN is estimated to be at least $15bn cheaper and two years faster to build, the hearing was told NBN Co will need to lower its revenue projections as copper can't match the speeds of 250-1000 MBPS of fibre-to-the-premises.
Speeds on FTTN are expected to be 25-100 MBPS.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/29/coalition-unlikely-hit-hit-national-broadband-network-deadline
Azza said:
Azza, when they say speeds of 25 -100 MBPS, do they mean downloads or line speed?
I just did a speed test on the computer I`m using and got these results.
Mirror: Optus
Data: 20 MB
Test Time: 10 secs
Your line speed is 17.15 Mbps (17148 kbps).
Your download speed is 2.09 MB/s (2144 KB/s).
I don`t really know the difference between the two to be honest, but in general web browsing this computer is very fast for me.
So why do we need 250 - 1000 MBPS, instead of 25 - 100 MBPS (which seems very fast to me).
I`m guessing it`s for more important and technical things than general internet browsing, so is it needed for medical procedures etc.?
It's not just medical procedures. More and more will be available online. The bottle neck to a lot of the technologies is download speed.
I remember when I jumped from 56k dial up to 256k ADSL. That was it, nirvana. I'd never need more than 256k download. Now I have 200Mb FTTH and while it's enough for now, soon I'll be able to replace my dedicated cable boxes and pull the channels via the internet. To have multiple streaming HD I will jump up to 500Mb because I like the thought of a buffer.
The more bandwidth, the more innovation it enables. Moving to FTTH is not putting Australia at the forefront, it's just catching up to the leaders. Stopping at FTTN is silly and will limit the innovation that high speed internet to the masses encourages.
I remember when I jumped from 56k dial up to 256k ADSL. That was it, nirvana. I'd never need more than 256k download. Now I have 200Mb FTTH and while it's enough for now, soon I'll be able to replace my dedicated cable boxes and pull the channels via the internet. To have multiple streaming HD I will jump up to 500Mb because I like the thought of a buffer.
The more bandwidth, the more innovation it enables. Moving to FTTH is not putting Australia at the forefront, it's just catching up to the leaders. Stopping at FTTN is silly and will limit the innovation that high speed internet to the masses encourages.
Well, there's a surprise.
Public schools to bear brunt of Pyne Gonski switch, say education ministers
Federal minister looking to reduce funding share for public schools sector, say state ministers after angry meeting
In a show of force, education ministers from jurisdictions that have signed a deal jointly fronted media in Sydney to demand the government meet its election pledge.
The federal government is looking to reduce the share of funding it provides to the public school sector, according to angry state and territory education ministers who faced off with Christopher Pyne at a “very heated” meeting on Friday.
Far from allaying concerns over the federal government’s decision to rewrite the David Gonski-inspired funding system next year, Friday’s face-to-face discussion has further stoked anger from both Liberal and Labor colleagues who are demanding assurances their states will not be disadvantaged for having signed deals with the former government.
In a show of force, the education ministers from jurisdictions that signed a deal – the conservative-led NSW and Victoria and Labor-run South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT – jointly fronted the media in Sydney to demand the government meet its election pledge to honour signed agreements on school funding.
The NSW education minister, Adrian Piccoli, led the attack on his federal Coalition colleagues, saying pointedly that the Abbott government had broken its election promises and the “parents of the millions of children” had a right to be disappointed.
“The government made a promise, made a commitment, that there would be no broken promises under the government that they lead, and unfortunately that has not come to pass,” Piccoli said.
Pyne said this week he would match the $1.6bn total extra federal funding budgeted by Labor over the next four years, plus an extra $230m for Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory – states which failed to reach a deal with the former government before the election. He has not repeated pledges that no school would be worst off.
States that signed up fear they will lose out in a redistribution of funding after 2014 as part of Pyne’s yet-to-be-developed new funding model.
Piccoli said there was uncertainty over who would bear the loss of any reduction in funding in the three years after 2014, revealing Pyne made comments “that would presume that that loss will have to be borne by public schools”.
“When asked for clarification about that, or to confirm that that was not the case, no such clarification was forthcoming, so not only do we have the uncertainty about the funding over six years, over four years – what that funding might be, even within four years – but the reduction in the funding, where’s that burden going to fall?,” said Piccoli, a National party minister.
“It’s been made very clear to me by the independent and Catholic sectors in NSW that they agree to the split of additional funds that we signed up to.”
Piccoli added: “I think that’s quite an incredible outcome, if reduced funding for states only comes out of public schools, not out of non-government schools.”
The Tasmanian education minister, Nick McKim, said Pyne “implied strongly” that he retained the capacity to renegotiate agreements, including on the funding share between government and non-government school sectors.
“This is a bombshell revelation that will rock the public education system in Australia to its core,” said McKim, who is also leader of the Greens in Tasmania.
“You wouldn’t have thought it possible; there is now less certainty at lunchtime today than there was when we walked into this meeting this morning. That is down to Christopher Pyne’s complete incapacity to offer any guarantees that satisfied these states.”
Pyne, who was standing nearby during the state ministers’ media conference, sought to downplay the conflict, saying there was nothing new in disputes between federal and state governments over funding and he expected ministers to argue strongly on behalf of their states.
Asked whether he was committed to a sector-blind approach to funding, Pyne said: “The sector-blind approach to funding was for disadvantaged students … I’m completely committed to a sector-blind approach on the loadings that might follow students whether they are in the public sector or the private sector, and that’s always what we’ve said.”
The reforms pursued by the former Labor federal government would see a base level of funding for each student, to be topped up by sector-blind loadings targeting specific categories of disadvantage. The benchmark funding for each student was to be adjusted in the non-government school sector, based on the capacity of parents to pay.
Catholic and independent schools have previously received the majority of government funding from the Commonwealth, while public schools have been largely funded by the states. The Gonski panel’s report, published last year, recommended a shift towards “more balanced funding roles”, with the Commonwealth assuming a greater role in funding government schools and the states taking on a greater role in funding non-government schools.
Australian Education Union national president Angelo Gavrielatos said the loadings represented only a small fraction of all the additional funding and he feared cuts to the base funding.
He said any suggestion that any such cut would be borne only by the public school sector was “an affront to every public school student, their teachers and their parents”, given the majority of disadvantage students attended government schools.
“In all of my involvement over many years I’ve never seen a press conference where ministers – National party ministers, Liberal party ministers, a Greens minister and Labor ministers – have expressed such unity and such force with respect to the critical issue of funding,” Gavrielatos said.
Further comment is being sought from Pyne about his plans regarding federal funding shares for government and non-government schools. But he earlier told reporters in Sydney that the Coalition had made it clear it would match funding over four years, rather than the full six-year agreements signed by Labor.
“Every commitment that I have made, we are keeping, but we do need to sort out the [Bill] Shorten shambles I have been left,” Pyne said. “The idea there is a national funding model is quite frankly farcical and everyone knows it.”
Pyne said the former government had made different deals with different states when it came to annual indexation and the pace at which the new base level of funding would be reached.
His new model, to be revealed early next year, would be truly national and fair and would not treat students in some states as second class, he said.
Piccoli, chair of the ministerial council that met in Sydney, said states that signed a deal with the Commonwealth before the election did not oppose extra money flowing to the hold-out states, but this funding should not be taken away from the early adopters.
He said the recent funding agreements had brought peace to the long-running battles over funding of public schools and non-government schools, but the federal government had now “plunged education across this country into unnecessary uncertainty”.
“The bottom line is the current federal government made unequivocal promises that they would honour dollar for dollar agreements and funding signed by the states, and those signatory states are here as part of this press conference and we are very disappointed that they have so far made announcements that they are not going to honour those agreements,” Piccoli said.
The Victorian Liberal education minister, Martin Dixon, said the state was currently framing its budget for the 2014-15 financial year, but had no certainty about the level of federal support for schools in the 2015 calendar year.
An open letter to Pyne, signed by Gonski review panel members Ken Boston, Kathryn Greiner and Carmen Lawrence, as well as education advocates and charities, urges the federal government to stick by its election claim to be on a school funding “unity ticket” with Labor by keeping the new system for at least four years.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/29/education-ministers-slam-broken-promise-on-school-funding
Public schools to bear brunt of Pyne Gonski switch, say education ministers
Federal minister looking to reduce funding share for public schools sector, say state ministers after angry meeting
In a show of force, education ministers from jurisdictions that have signed a deal jointly fronted media in Sydney to demand the government meet its election pledge.
The federal government is looking to reduce the share of funding it provides to the public school sector, according to angry state and territory education ministers who faced off with Christopher Pyne at a “very heated” meeting on Friday.
Far from allaying concerns over the federal government’s decision to rewrite the David Gonski-inspired funding system next year, Friday’s face-to-face discussion has further stoked anger from both Liberal and Labor colleagues who are demanding assurances their states will not be disadvantaged for having signed deals with the former government.
In a show of force, the education ministers from jurisdictions that signed a deal – the conservative-led NSW and Victoria and Labor-run South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT – jointly fronted the media in Sydney to demand the government meet its election pledge to honour signed agreements on school funding.
The NSW education minister, Adrian Piccoli, led the attack on his federal Coalition colleagues, saying pointedly that the Abbott government had broken its election promises and the “parents of the millions of children” had a right to be disappointed.
“The government made a promise, made a commitment, that there would be no broken promises under the government that they lead, and unfortunately that has not come to pass,” Piccoli said.
Pyne said this week he would match the $1.6bn total extra federal funding budgeted by Labor over the next four years, plus an extra $230m for Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory – states which failed to reach a deal with the former government before the election. He has not repeated pledges that no school would be worst off.
States that signed up fear they will lose out in a redistribution of funding after 2014 as part of Pyne’s yet-to-be-developed new funding model.
Piccoli said there was uncertainty over who would bear the loss of any reduction in funding in the three years after 2014, revealing Pyne made comments “that would presume that that loss will have to be borne by public schools”.
“When asked for clarification about that, or to confirm that that was not the case, no such clarification was forthcoming, so not only do we have the uncertainty about the funding over six years, over four years – what that funding might be, even within four years – but the reduction in the funding, where’s that burden going to fall?,” said Piccoli, a National party minister.
“It’s been made very clear to me by the independent and Catholic sectors in NSW that they agree to the split of additional funds that we signed up to.”
Piccoli added: “I think that’s quite an incredible outcome, if reduced funding for states only comes out of public schools, not out of non-government schools.”
The Tasmanian education minister, Nick McKim, said Pyne “implied strongly” that he retained the capacity to renegotiate agreements, including on the funding share between government and non-government school sectors.
“This is a bombshell revelation that will rock the public education system in Australia to its core,” said McKim, who is also leader of the Greens in Tasmania.
“You wouldn’t have thought it possible; there is now less certainty at lunchtime today than there was when we walked into this meeting this morning. That is down to Christopher Pyne’s complete incapacity to offer any guarantees that satisfied these states.”
Pyne, who was standing nearby during the state ministers’ media conference, sought to downplay the conflict, saying there was nothing new in disputes between federal and state governments over funding and he expected ministers to argue strongly on behalf of their states.
Asked whether he was committed to a sector-blind approach to funding, Pyne said: “The sector-blind approach to funding was for disadvantaged students … I’m completely committed to a sector-blind approach on the loadings that might follow students whether they are in the public sector or the private sector, and that’s always what we’ve said.”
The reforms pursued by the former Labor federal government would see a base level of funding for each student, to be topped up by sector-blind loadings targeting specific categories of disadvantage. The benchmark funding for each student was to be adjusted in the non-government school sector, based on the capacity of parents to pay.
Catholic and independent schools have previously received the majority of government funding from the Commonwealth, while public schools have been largely funded by the states. The Gonski panel’s report, published last year, recommended a shift towards “more balanced funding roles”, with the Commonwealth assuming a greater role in funding government schools and the states taking on a greater role in funding non-government schools.
Australian Education Union national president Angelo Gavrielatos said the loadings represented only a small fraction of all the additional funding and he feared cuts to the base funding.
He said any suggestion that any such cut would be borne only by the public school sector was “an affront to every public school student, their teachers and their parents”, given the majority of disadvantage students attended government schools.
“In all of my involvement over many years I’ve never seen a press conference where ministers – National party ministers, Liberal party ministers, a Greens minister and Labor ministers – have expressed such unity and such force with respect to the critical issue of funding,” Gavrielatos said.
Further comment is being sought from Pyne about his plans regarding federal funding shares for government and non-government schools. But he earlier told reporters in Sydney that the Coalition had made it clear it would match funding over four years, rather than the full six-year agreements signed by Labor.
“Every commitment that I have made, we are keeping, but we do need to sort out the [Bill] Shorten shambles I have been left,” Pyne said. “The idea there is a national funding model is quite frankly farcical and everyone knows it.”
Pyne said the former government had made different deals with different states when it came to annual indexation and the pace at which the new base level of funding would be reached.
His new model, to be revealed early next year, would be truly national and fair and would not treat students in some states as second class, he said.
Piccoli, chair of the ministerial council that met in Sydney, said states that signed a deal with the Commonwealth before the election did not oppose extra money flowing to the hold-out states, but this funding should not be taken away from the early adopters.
He said the recent funding agreements had brought peace to the long-running battles over funding of public schools and non-government schools, but the federal government had now “plunged education across this country into unnecessary uncertainty”.
“The bottom line is the current federal government made unequivocal promises that they would honour dollar for dollar agreements and funding signed by the states, and those signatory states are here as part of this press conference and we are very disappointed that they have so far made announcements that they are not going to honour those agreements,” Piccoli said.
The Victorian Liberal education minister, Martin Dixon, said the state was currently framing its budget for the 2014-15 financial year, but had no certainty about the level of federal support for schools in the 2015 calendar year.
An open letter to Pyne, signed by Gonski review panel members Ken Boston, Kathryn Greiner and Carmen Lawrence, as well as education advocates and charities, urges the federal government to stick by its election claim to be on a school funding “unity ticket” with Labor by keeping the new system for at least four years.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/29/education-ministers-slam-broken-promise-on-school-funding
Azza said:
I just want to clarify and understand this issue better.
1. This is a positive surely? An extra $230,000,000 has been budgeted for education.
2. I find interesting no real need to make wholesale changes to the funding model between Government and Private schools for mine.
3. Do we know this? Or is Mr Piccoli just scaremongering?
4. Why is this the case? It seems like an inefficient red tape system to me that will take funds away from the frontline with added duplication.
5. Again this seems to be inefficient and goes against a national education scheme.
6. I have a problem with Governments signing agreements with this length of time regardless of who is in power. This covers of 2 Government terms. A reduced term say of 4 years will allow a new Government in their second term to implement their policy that they have been elected to do. They would have earned that right if the Australian people deem them worthy of servicing a second term.
7. I think his comments here are fair as it’s clear that the former Government didn’t complete the job. I will see what he comes up with before too getting excited.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/treasurer-joe-hockey-rejects-graincorp-takeover-bid-by-adm-20131129-2yf5f.html
What's your view?
I think it was a smart decision as I feel our Agribusiness Industries are undervalued and they will be a source of growth and security for our future generations.
Also interesting that the Green's support the Government move. While the ALP want it sold off.
What's your view?
I think it was a smart decision as I feel our Agribusiness Industries are undervalued and they will be a source of growth and security for our future generations.
Also interesting that the Green's support the Government move. While the ALP want it sold off.
