Yes and all done between Rudd and Conroy on the back of a napkin during an plane flight......No cost benefit analysis was ever carried out....These two idiots had no idea what it was going to cost.
I simply don't believe that. I the Libs thought that the NBN was a white elephant they had a duty to oppose it at the election and promise to dump it. Instead they knew it was an essential piece of infrastructure that they didn't have the foresight to realise during the 11 years of Howard. Their "market economy" minds assumed that private enterprise would build it if the public wanted it.
That is a failure of their ideology. They are either giant hypocrites or stupendous wastrels as far as the NBN is concerned.
I simply don't believe that. I the Libs thought that the NBN was a white elephant they had a duty to oppose it at the election and promise to dump it. Instead they knew it was an essential piece of infrastructure that they didn't have the foresight to realise during the 11 years of Howard. Their "market economy" minds assumed that private enterprise would build it if the public wanted it.
That is a failure of their ideology. They are either giant hypocrites or stupendous wastrels as far as the NBN is concerned.
Yes and all done between Rudd and Conroy on the back of a napkin during an plane flight......No cost benefit analysis was ever carried out....These two idiots had no idea what it was going to cost.
You do realise that MT forced NBN to start the change to the MTM model of the NBN before the CBA was released.
You do realise we were promised a minimum of 25Mbs nationally by the next election, a promise broken 2.5 months after the Abbott Govt was formed.
You do realise the fully costed nbn policy from the Abbott opposition has ballooned out to $56 from their original less than napkin idea of $29B
You do realise the Govt has taken over all responsibility of the copper network, including asbestos removal, while admitting they do not know what the quality of the copper or HFC networks is. How can you sign an $11B deal for infrastructure but not actually know what you're getting in return?
Perhaps you should go back and read Dr. Smiths link and notes where it was explained about the massive stuff ups by Labor which had to be fixed like the purchase by Conroy of faulty optic fibre cable.
Post # 7475
About 118,000 homes and businesses that should be connected to the national broadband network can’t use the service because of defective fibre connections.
The government-owned company building the network is set to pay *contractors tens of millions extra to fix the problems and resolve a two-year negotiation stalemate
Did you realize that?
I'm not saying there were no issues with how Labor managed the NBN rollout. They over promised and under delivered. But if you're critical of Labor for doing that, then you have to be equally scathing of the Abbott Govt as well.
You have to admit that the way the Abbott Govt has progressed with the NBN has been rather poor. In 2 years of being in office the only paid for services are provided by the Labor NBN. NBN has had to spend $1B just on being able to have the OSS to be able to cope with the complexity of FTTN / FTTB / HFC.
Part of the reason of the slow down for activating customers in the trial node rollout areas is because NBN don't want to stress the OSS too much at the beginning, just in case it falls over. The poor support staff there will definitely be living in interesting times for the rest of the year.
I don't have to admit anything to you buddy.
The current government have had a hell of job fixing the LUG party's mess costing billions more......Labor's Conroy should have done the right thing in the first place but of course we all know how bloody inefficient Conroy was.
I don't have to admit anything to you buddy.
The current government have had a hell of job fixing the LUG party's mess costing billions more......Labor's Conroy should have done the right thing in the first place but of course we all know how bloody inefficient Conroy was.
So things like the freezing of fuel excise indexation, halving of CGT, tax free super, halving of the pension asset taper rate, stretch till now. Just the freezing of fuel indexation was robbing the Govt of over $5B in revenue last year. We're talking in the tens of billion in revenue lost on an annual basis, and over the last 15 years would have provided the kind of revenue required to make a decent dent in the infrastructure deficit we face.
Tax cuts based on revenue from the largest resource boom in the world were unsustainable, and yes Labor were foolish for going along with Howard in providing further ones after the 2007 election. The issues we face are not all legacies from the Labor Government.
But then Abbott has added over $100B of new borrowings in 2 years. Is that also a borrow and tax way, because I was under the impression that surpluses were part of the Liberal DNA.
Pop over to http://aofm.gov.au/
Australian Government Securities on Issue* $384,687m
I bet you that figure will not be going down any time soon.
When does it stop being Labor's fault?
Sydney! :nono:
I refer to what you said earlier,
You don't want to hold Labor to account on fiscal management after 2 years while still complaining about the Howard government's after 8 ??
That's a double :nono: :nono:.
My bolds.
Do I hear the drums of recession? Surely not, this govt has economic credentials and knows how to negotiate our national products to the world, n'est-ce pas?
We have everything we need now we are consolidating our: self sufficient manufacturing, value added processing, primary and allied engineering, valued workforce, state of the art communications, best in field education, low cost housing, great currency exchange rate, affordable quality food (esp. meat), welfare for the poor and needy and infrastructure for the future, have we ever seen so much govt build infrastucture, it's amazing.
Wow !
What country are you living in Tisme ? I want to move there !
Do I hear the drums of recession? Surely not, this govt has economic credentials and knows how to negotiate our national products to the world, n'est-ce pas?
We have everything we need now we are consolidating our: self sufficient manufacturing, value added processing, primary and allied engineering, valued workforce, state of the art communications, best in field education, low cost housing, great currency exchange rate, affordable quality food (esp. meat), welfare for the poor and needy and infrastructure for the future, have we ever seen so much govt build infrastucture, it's amazing.
Looks like we could be heading to a GST election
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...aking-very-powerful-point-abbott-says/6746500
Question:
If the Federal government is willing to forgo revenue via tax cuts anyway, why doesn't it just give more money to the States to run their services instead of upping the GST ?
Abbot is the love child of Chopper Bishop and Non Core Howard, so me thinks he's trying to please his proverbial father.
Would be nice if there was an acknowledgement that it's cheaper for the Govt to build things and have them slowly pay off via the tax system, or minimal tolls, over the economic life of the asset. Offer the super funds and general public ILBs with a 2 to 3% coupon + CPI and I bet you'd have so much money thrown at you to build infrastructure in this country, that the problem would be trying to find enough economically justifiable projects to soak up the $$$$
Take a long term view, bring back the knowledge of building things back into GOvt, and we might have a chance to build up our international competitiveness and ride the economic slump from the end of the mining construction boom.
Yes, all of that and what does OUR Future Fund invest in ? Why doesn't the government require 52% local ownership of agricultural investments over say $50 million. If these areas are so attractive to foreign investors, why not for our Future Fund ? Govt investment would be a guarantee of long term viability for foreign investors and more of the profits would stay here.
For starters, recent research by Monica Tan and Marie-Ann Cam from the University of New South Wales found investment management fees and operating expenses rise with the number of independent trustees sitting on a fund’s board.
These higher fees and expenses are paid for out of members’ savings. That means having more independent directors could lead to lower after-fee returns.
To meet the government’s proposed rules, industry funds would also have to find and appoint 64 new chairs and bring in 295 new directors. Industry Super estimates this churn would cost up to $168 million – a price that would also be passed directly on to fund members through higher fees.
These costs might be worth paying if there was any evidence that super funds with more independent directors perform better overall. But in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction.
Modelling by SuperRatings shows industry funds with employer/employee boards have outperformed retail funds by 1.66 per cent over the past decade. That’s why the average industry fund has delivered $16,000 more to their members in the last 10 years than the average retail equivalent.
Of the top 10 best performing super funds for the past financial year, just two were retail funds. If we take a longer view and look at the top 10 funds over the last decade, not a single retail fund makes the list. Given this, it’s not surprising that the Assistant Treasurer recently switched his work superannuation from a retail fund to an industry fund.
So if having more independent directors on super fund boards doesn’t improve returns and may actually reduce them, why is the Abbott Government so fixed on making this change?
Looks like we could be heading to a GST election
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...aking-very-powerful-point-abbott-says/6746500
Question:
If the Federal government is willing to forgo revenue via tax cuts anyway, why doesn't it just give more money to the States to run their services instead of upping the GST ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?