Labor wins broadband election

By Liz Tay, Ry Crozier on Sep 7, 2010 3:38 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Independents back Gillard minority Government.

Independent MPs Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have backed Labor to govern Australia, with both saying the national broadband network was critical to their decisions.

The nation stopped for the announcement, which was broadcast live nationally at 3pm AEST.

Windsor said there was an "enormous opportunity for regional Australians to engage with infrastructure of this century".

"To pass up that opportunity and miss the opportunity for a million people of country Australia ... I thought [it] was too good an opportunity to miss," Windsor said.

"My advisers in relation to broadband technology - of which I have many - suggest you do it once, do it right and you do it with fibre.

"That has been one of the major influences I've had in making a decision."

Oakeshott (pictured) also cited "the broadband issue [as] a key sticking point", as well as the computers in schools program.

Windsor said that among the NBN-related agreements reached, there would be "equity in terms of wholesale pricing to country areas" and prioritised rollout to regional Australia.

The decisions

Windsor "reserved the right" to represent his constituency "on any vote in parliament and [to] move a no-confidence motion" against the Government as he saw fit.

"I intend, with my vote, to support the Labor party," he said.

Oakeshott kept the nation waiting for 15 excruciating minutes before announcing his decision.

He prefaced the announcement with a number of warnings to the incoming government, stating that his decision came down to "stability" and "outcomes" - something he called the "eyes of my children test".

"This is the 20-year decision," Oakeshott said. "[But] this is not a mandate for any government.

"We should have a great big swear jar in the [parliament] building for the next three years and if anyone uses this word ‘mandate' they should have to chip money into it.

"It's not a mandate for anyone, nor is it an endorsement of any brand, philosophy or campaign."

He concluded: "I'm confirming for the Governor-General of Australia that today, I will give confidence and supply in Julia Gillard, unless exceptional circumstances determine otherwise."

These "exceptional circumstances" included mal-administration, corruption, and "if people aren't fair dinkum about the documents they've signed".

47 comments in this discussion

"Well history wasn't my strong point anon, my point though was that we have never elected the Prime Minister, we've always elected individual MP's belonging to a Party (or Independent) who then ..."

By Mordd

Tags

labor, wins, election, decided, broadband, independents, tony windsor, rob oakeshott, election10

Telstra plans repair to North Bundaberg

Dodo core routers downed

ClubTelco culls national price scheme

Greenfields exempted from NBN trial expiry

Breaking Stories

New NZ IT minister accused of 'extraordinary secrecy'

Govt spies early exit from Telstra contract

Suncorp rules out outsourced IT as customers go online

Accenture wins Health data warehouse deal

Comments: 47

RDEFCON1 Sep 7, 2010 4:04 PM	"You do it once, do it right and you do it with fibre" Yeah right. The middle bit is the problem.
noobi Sep 7, 2010 4:15 PM	which middle? isnt fibre point to point
meski Sep 7, 2010 4:26 PM	@Rdefcon: why would you not want to do it right? Wireless is so obviously wrong.
RDEFCON1 Sep 7, 2010 5:21 PM	@meski It's not about want, it's about can. Can they do it right, once. Lemme see about recent state and federal government records. Home Insulation - FAIL. School Halls - FAIL. Myki - FAIL. Green Loans - FAIL. Laptops in Schools - FAIL. ETS- FAIL. FuelWatch - FAIL. Grocery Watch - FAIL. So... nice sentiment - but whether the new 6-headed monster (Labor, Greens, + 4 Indies) can 'do it right' - that is a very very big question. Yet that's the entire basis laid out for Oakeshot and Windsor's decision.
RDEFCON1 Sep 7, 2010 5:22 PM	oh - and by the way... I work on wireless every day. No problems here.
ITnovice Sep 7, 2010 5:51 PM	Can't say that i blame them for their decision, who would want to continue the Telstra monopoly and terrible service in the regional areas they serve? The NBN was not the only reason they sided with Labor though.
waterytowers Sep 7, 2010 6:11 PM	@RDEFCON1 you work on wireless every day and I am guessing you don't mind disconnects and delays on a regular basis due to poor reception or interference. Not everyone gets a good signal for wireless but a cable provides a much higher guarantee. Big business often pays for the guaranteed service but not all businesses can afford that cost. The NBN will provide a better network for all.
ray73864 Sep 7, 2010 6:20 PM	@RDEFCON1: FuelWatch - FAIL. Maybe if you don't live in WA. For those of us that live in WA. FuelWatch - WIN. Best thing to have ever been created, i can look at tomorrows fuel and see that these places in my area have it for this price, and know that i can go any time of the day and it will STILL be at that price.
ray73864 Sep 7, 2010 6:22 PM	As for the whole wireless thing, in the town i live in (25kms north is a big city, 25kms south is a rather big shire), we're lucky if we get more than 2 or 3 bars reception, i can't use wireless broadband because even when it does connect, it disconnects quite frequently and the speed is pretty poor... Mind you, NextG signal strength in WA is pretty poor for most areas if you don't live in the city.
DazzaJ Sep 7, 2010 7:50 PM	I cannot believe how incredibly naive some people can be. Do you think an ISP will give me a full fibre 1000GBIt unlimited connection for 50 bucks. No, maybe a reduce 2,000 kbit connection for $100+ with penalties. It will be unaffordable for most people, and yet again, it is only for the heavy populated (labour supporting) areas, primarily on the eastern states who have a slight hope of getting it. What we WILL end up with is a highly filtered, monitored and controlled internet, with ALL of Australias data being controlled, logged and monitored by the extreme left wing dictators of labour. Remember the Filter, the Logs, email monitoring, the 10year data storage on ALL uses, and the rest of LABOURS great NBN plan! Its not JUST a connection. Its not about the performance, its always been about the control.
Maxxi2 Sep 8, 2010 12:06 AM	DazzaJ, you seem to be somewhat jaundiced in your views mate, is it possible your attacks on the NBN et al have more to do with Labor and less to do with the actual initiative? Is the fact that they are now the govt again perhaps driving the speculation level that you are reaching here? You are talking about a 2Mbit connection fo9r $100+ plus with penalties as the product of the NBN, when that is already available today, in fact I get 20Mbps, 60GB and for $79 per month. You must use a really really bad ISP if you are paying $100+ penalties for 2Mbps. Did anyone ever mention to you that ISPs already, and have always logged all your traffic and connections, it is just a question of how long they retain the records? Nothing insidious at all in that, standard telecoms practices actually. So are suggesting all the ISPs have always been the extreme left wing dictators of labour? (I expect you mean the ALP - Labor Party) I worked with many ISPs over the years, and did not meet many extreme left wing dictators at all, but hey maybe I was just lucky. Could you perhaps also blog us all a copy of the govt proposal to maintain a 10year data storage on ALL uses? Or a link. Looks like with all the electionnoise I missed the details on that one. Thanks. BTW, having a hard time finding a NBN statement from govt or NBN folks promising unlimited data packages? Again, please be so kind and pop us all a link to check that one out, sound sgreat! In 1996, somebody asked the following question: "I cannot believe how incredibly naive some people can be. Do you think an ISP will give me a full 56 KBit connection for 50 bucks? No, maybe a reduced 28.8 kbit connection for $100+ with penalties." Strange how history just goes on repeating itself... (RDEF, as the saying goes, the exception proves the rule. Check out the Vivid Wireless performance issues of late... Massive contention rate problems, miserable performance and many many unhappy customers...)
deteego Sep 8, 2010 1:08 AM	What Is really sad is that this was basically a massive screw you to democracy. Coalition won more seats, more primary votes, more total votes with preferences (something that Julia Gillard hypocritically said should be the consensus for a government). Even in the Independants own electorate, Liberal had more votes @Maxxi2 You do realise Gillard has already stated/heavily implied that FTTH will not be for everyone, only the people who can afford it
HubertCumberdale Sep 8, 2010 1:48 AM	deteego wrote: What Is really sad is that this was basically a massive screw you to democracy. Coalition won more seats, more primary votes, more total votes with preferences (something that Julia Gillard hypocritically said should be the consensus for a government). Even in the Independants own electorate, Liberal had more votes This isn't a massive screw you to democracy this is exactly how democracy works in this country with the preferential voting system. It's funny to see people flip-flop all over the place on this when convenient. For the record I dont agree with the preferential voting system, perhaps the coalition should have done something about it when they were in power... For the record I'm not a Labour supporter, neither of these two idiotic parties have ever impressed me much but I'm willing to give credit to Labour for at least having a decent forward thinking broadband plan.
ray73864 Sep 8, 2010 9:22 AM	One has to remember that the ALP is a party of 1, the Coalition is a party of 2 (Libs and Nats), if you seperate those 2 parties from each other, then count up the votes, which party got the most primary votes then? And like all good new things, the cost will always be quite high, but it relies on the early adopters paying the high price in order to bring the cost down (remember that the early adopters usually pay for the R&D). Eventually the price itself will go down as more people jump on the bandwagon.
advocate Sep 8, 2010 9:23 AM	It seems to me Labor's negotiating skills with the Independents was much more sophisticated than the Coalition, I don't think Abbott and Hockey had a clue about how to do it except use the broad brush 'chuck bucket loads of money at them' and then be incredulous they were not supported. Labor chucked loads of money the Independents way also but they made the Independents feel a bit more comfortable about it by not being so crass in the delivery. With that in mind I think a Abbott Government would have had a rocky road if they won power, it's going to be a rocky road for Labor as well but they have at least proved they can negotiate when it's crunch time, and there will be heaps of crunch times. The Liberals need to look hard at their leadership over this, especially Abbott and Hockey, they blew the Independents negotiations bad, and also the shadow Communication Minister Smith's performance on pushing (if you could call it that) Coalition Communications policy. Edited by advocate: 8/9/2010 09:28:49 AM
thor Sep 8, 2010 10:52 AM	@Maxxi2 We had our disagreements in the past (e.g the Filter) but I have to agree with you on this one (the NBN). I remember getting dialup around 10 years ago, 5 years ago we got adsl and now adsl but you have 2-3 computers, friends come over with laptops and then all of a sudden, bam slow speeds. Wireless only travels at a third of the speed that wired connection have and at the best of times is prone to fail. I hope that the NBN is build, quickly, properly and smoothly.
thor Sep 8, 2010 11:29 AM	@deteego, you are complaining that liberal should have government, if that is the case then the greens will still have balance of power whether you like it or not. the Australian system is one of the best and fairest in the world. if you have any problems, take it up with the Australian Electoral Commission.
deteego Sep 8, 2010 1:00 PM	HubertCumberdale wrote: This isn't a massive screw you to democracy this is exactly how democracy works in this country with the preferential voting system. It's funny to see people flip-flop all over the place on this when convenient. For the record I dont agree with the preferential voting system, perhaps the coalition should have done something about it when they were in power... For the record I'm not a Labour supporter, neither of these two idiotic parties have ever impressed me much but I'm willing to give credit to Labour for at least having a decent forward thinking broadband plan. I just bolded a sentance you said You do realize that the Liberal Party also won regarding preferences. Up until the last few days of vote counting, Labor was ahead with preferences, however in the past few days Liberal beat Labor in both primary vote and votes regarding preferences. Liberals won democratically thor wrote: @deteego, you are complaining that liberal should have government, if that is the case then the greens will still have balance of power whether you like it or not. the Australian system is one of the best and fairest in the world. if you have any problems, take it up with the Australian Electoral Commission. No I am saying that in Democracy, who gets the most amount of votes (in Australia we have preferences, so you can also include that) should be the ones that are in power, that is after all the point of a DEMOCRACY. The Independants said they would wait until all the votes would come in to see who the people voted for (and as mentioned before it ended up being Liberal beating Labor in every that can be concluded as a democratic). Having 4 Ministers dictate who they believe should hold the power is not democratic at all. I also regard it as pathetic when the Tasmanian Independant Andrew Wilkie said that Liberal giving 1 Billion dollars of funding to Hobart Hospital was "unethical" when the deal with the Independants and Labor means that Labor has to hand over 9 Billion dollars. What was even funnier is Tony Windsor saying one of the factors for not picking Liberal is that he thought they would call an election ASAP to get themselves voted in (even though Tony Abbot said the complete opposite earlier). When asked why at the conference he believe Liberal had a higher chance of doing so (versus Labor), he replied "because they have a better chance of getting voted in". Umm, doesn't that imply that probably the Liberals should be in power if they have more votes (thats a democracy after all)? In the end it doesn't really matter, the Independants apart from Katter have probably shot themselves in the foot with their decision (they would most likely get voted out next election) and hardly any new bills will probably end up getting through the house of reps with the new Parlimentary rules. Being forced to answer questions in such a short amount of time will mean that both parties will just throw slogans at eachother in question time (this is exactly what happens in the lower house where such rules exist, its a joke there) and unlike the media who portrayed both Labor and Liberal being the 'same' (this is blatantly false, both parties have very different policies regarding Broadband, Climate Change and Paid Parental Leave) I predict that the Parliament would just stagnate. Im just saying the current Gillard Government is illegitimate, but its most likely much more beneficial for Liberals in the long run that they didn't form a minority government, because Labor is now in an incredibly awkward position. There is even massive doubt about the NBN (as seen in the other article on itnews), unfortunate for the people that ended up getting swayed by such a scheme Edited by deteego: 8/9/2010 01:02:35 PM
HubertCumberdale Sep 8, 2010 1:57 PM	deteego wrote: You do realize that the Liberal Party also won regarding preferences. Up until the last few days of vote counting, Labor was ahead with preferences, however in the past few days Liberal beat Labor in both primary vote and votes regarding preferences. Liberals won democratically No they didn't. Based on voting preferences labour the greens & the independents won more seats. you do realise that when you vote you aren't voting for a party but a representative for your electorate? that's why its called get this "The House of Representatives" so dont you respect the decision other voters made in their electorates? do you also hate democracy?
HubertCumberdale Sep 8, 2010 2:05 PM	deteego wrote: Having 4 Ministers dictate who they believe should hold the power is not democratic at all. whats your solution? go back to the polls? or should those 4 ministers stop being independents and join either the labour, liberal or national party? oh i have a better idea they could form a minority government for this term, problem solved. but that would be CRAZY. deteego wrote: Having 4 Ministers dictate who they believe should hold the power is not democratic at all. Yes it is.
deteego Sep 8, 2010 2:07 PM	HubertCumberdale wrote: deteego wrote: You do realize that the Liberal Party also won regarding preferences. Up until the last few days of vote counting, Labor was ahead with preferences, however in the past few days Liberal beat Labor in both primary vote and votes regarding preferences. Liberals won democratically No they didn't. Based on voting preferences labour the greens & the independents won more seats. you do realise that when you vote you aren't voting for a party but a representative for your electorate? that's why its called get this "The House of Representatives" so dont you respect the decision other voters made in their electorates? do you also hate democracy? No you are incorrect, you should probably watch the news more closely (or watch a channel like Sky News which reported the results in real time). In the 2nd last (or last day) when total vote count was done, Liberals won more seats, more primary votes and more votes including preferences then Labor. Obviously Labor had seats from other political parties (greens, Independant) but those aren't Labor parties Not surprisingly this wasn't reported that much by the mainstream media (2/7/9/10/SBS). You can have a look at the final post count These are the figures from the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ Labor 2 Party Preferred Result: 5,852,526 Liberal 2 Party Preferred Result: 5,853,333 5,853,333 > 5,852,526 Edited by deteego: 8/9/2010 02:09:21 PM HubertCumberdale wrote: deteego wrote: Having 4 Ministers dictate who they believe should hold the power is not democratic at all. whats your solution? go back to the polls? or should those 4 ministers stop being independents and join either the labour, liberal or national party? oh i have a better idea they could form a minority government for this term, problem solved. but that would be CRAZY. What they should have done is given Liberals the power, since Liberals did get more votes (thats even taking Julia Gillards advice, who said that whoever has more 2 party preferred votes should lead !!!) deteego wrote: Having 4 Ministers dictate who they believe should hold the power is not democratic at all. Yes it is. There is something that I underlined which makes that statement a bit of a paradox. Independents were voted to represent their electorate, not the country. Edited by deteego: 8/9/2010 02:28:10 PM
HubertCumberdale Sep 8, 2010 2:45 PM	deteego wrote: Liberals won more seats How any times are you going to say this? 76 seats is required to form a government they did not reach this amount, representatives from other electorates did thus we have a minority government. deteego wrote: No you are incorrect, you should probably watch the news more closely (or watch a channel like Sky News which reported the results in real time). In the 2nd last (or last day) when total vote count was done, Liberals won more seats, more primary votes and more votes including preferences then Labor. Obviously Labor had seats from other political parties (greens, Independant) but those aren't Labor parties Like I said: "labour the greens & the independents won more seats." Please learn to read. deteego wrote: Liberals won more seats You are confused they still need seats from the National Party to form a government. deteego wrote: There is something that I underlined which makes that statement a bit of a paradox. There is no paradox. Your premise is just faulty. I dont agree that they are dictating anything, they have a choice to make and whatever it is is their prerogative. if voters in their electorate dont like it they'll soon find out at the next election. deteego wrote: Independents were voted to represent their electorate, not the country. That's exactly what they are doing. But you wouldn't be saying this if no independents had been elected now would you?
deteego Sep 8, 2010 3:18 PM	HubertCumberdale wrote: How any times are you going to say this? 76 seats is required to form a government they did not reach this amount, representatives from other electorates did thus we have a minority government. Whats your point, I already know that HubertCumberdale wrote: Like I said: "labour the greens & the independents won more seats." Please learn to read. Maybe you should take your own advice, Greens and Independents do not full under labor. They are not part of the Labor government. Coalition consists of both Liberals and Nationals, they form a single party. HubertCumberdale wrote: You are confused they still need seats from the National Party to form a government. No shit shirlock. National Party is part of the Coalition (liberal party). This is not the case for Greens or for Independents. Some greens support Liberal, most support Labor. Vice Versa with Independents. All Nationals support Liberal, which is why they are regarded as a single party i.e. the coalition HubertCumberdale wrote: There is no paradox. Your premise is just faulty. I dont agree that they are dictating anything, they have a choice to make and whatever it is is their prerogative. if voters in their electorate dont like it they'll soon find out at the next election. If 4 people decide who forms a government, and not the total votes of the people of the country, they are dictating who forms power. Thats a fact, there isn't any other way you can cut it. Thats why they were called "kingmakers" in the media, they chose who became king (and not the people) HubertCumberdale wrote: That's exactly what they are doing. But you wouldn't be saying this if no independents had been elected now would you? Actually they weren't and thats something they have directly said. All independents said they would be making the decisions on what they thought were the best intentions of the nation, not just their electorate. They were not voted to represent the nation, but thats something they did as soon as they got the power. Furthermore, their electorates (the people that voted for them) are largely conservative liberal voters. Of course this isn't surprising, but we should have a parliamentary system that prevents such things from happening in the future The whole point of the democratic system is you don't have a small minority of people creating a massive influence in power outside of their own 'jurisdiction' (just like having very wealthy business's influencing something in politics with money) and thats exactly what happened. You had 4 people (the independents) who decided who would form a government, instead of a total vote (primary or preferred) or the votes in their electorate. If they were voted as a government of Independents, that would be a different story, but their role isn't to represent the country, and thats what they did. The Independents made their own decision as to who they thought would be more stable, and who they thought would be better serving in those seats. Thats a job for voters. Theoretically speaking a second election with just Coalition/Labor would have been the most moral solution, but I think everyone had enough of the election. This is actually where the Governor General should have stepped in Furthermore Gillard stated that whatever single party had the largest party preferred vote should lead the country (obviously when Labor was in lead). It ended up being Liberals. Bit hypocritical ain't it? Edited by deteego: 8/9/2010 03:27:05 PM
Ace Sep 8, 2010 4:00 PM	Ha, you're a bit of a laugh @deteego. The Libs only got 44 seats at the last election compared to Labors 71! It's clear that people really don't like the Libs that much. Certainly not enough to actually vote for them.
deteego Sep 8, 2010 4:03 PM	Ace wrote: Ha, you're a bit of a laugh @deteego. The Libs only got 44 seats at the last election compared to Labors 71! It's clear that people really don't like the Libs that much. Certainly not enough to actually vote for them. Liberals are under coalition ' I can also use similar arguments to say that some factional party under Labor only got X votes, so clearly people didn't want Labor...... The two major parties are Coalition and Labor, Coalition is mainly made up of 2 factions (Liberals, Nationals) who received more votes then Labor
HubertCumberdale Sep 8, 2010 4:12 PM	deteego wrote: Whats your point, I already know that My point is you don’t know much about how democracy works in this country. deteego wrote: Maybe you should take your own advice, Greens and Independents do not full under labor. They are not part of the Labor government. Coalition consists of both Liberals and Nationals, they form a single party. Liberals are not part of Nationals and vice versa, so what is your point? that only Liberals and Nationals may form collation governments? Labour didn’t get enough seats in their own right so they have to get support from the greens and independents much like the Liberals need support from the Nationals to form a government. deteego wrote: If 4 people decide who forms a government, and not the total votes of the people of the country, they are dictating who forms power. Thats a fact, there isn't any other way you can cut it. Thats why they were called "kingmakers" in the media, they chose who became king (and not the people) Who cares what the media says? They use stupid buzzwords all the time. But once again your premise is just faulty, these 4 people are not dictating anything voters chose them and its up to them to decide whether they want to support the Labour party or not. deteego wrote: You had 4 people (the independents) who decided who would form a government, instead of a total vote (primary or preferred) or the votes in their electorate. Once again you wouldn't be saying this if no independents had been elected because they’d either be part of the labour party or the liberals as it turns out they can chose to form a minority government if they wish and that is what they have done. They are independents, that is their advantage, good for them. No use crying like a baby all day long about it. deteego wrote: This is actually where the Governor General should have stepped in LOL deteego wrote: Furthermore Gillard stated that whatever single party had the largest party preferred vote should lead the country (obviously when Labor was in lead). It ended up being Liberals. Bit hypocritical ain't it? Who cares what Gillard stated? She still needs 76 seats too.
HubertCumberdale Sep 8, 2010 4:19 PM	btw deteego if you really think this electoral process is undemocratic then why dont you go out and gather everyone that agrees with you and protest about it?
deteego Sep 8, 2010 4:27 PM	HubertCumberdale wrote: My point is you don’t know much about how democracy works in this country. My point is its not democracy (at least what just happened). I know how politics/voting works. Im saying (this) part of it is undemocratic (I never said its illegal or unconstitutional) Thats like saying Chinas form of government is "democratic" because they do everything according to their parliamentary rules. Democracy is a concept of government HubertCumberdale wrote: Liberals are not part of Nationals and vice versa, so what is your point? that only Liberals and Nationals may form collation governments? Labour didn’t get enough seats in their own right so they have to get support from the greens and independents much like the Liberals need support from the Nationals to form a government. Its not the same, because Greens do not give unanimous support for Labor (and neither do Independants). Otherwise Greens would give 100% preferences to Labor (and vice versa) which isn't the case HubertCumberdale wrote: Who cares what the media says? They use stupid buzzwords all the time. But once again your premise is just faulty, these 4 people are not dictating anything voters chose them and its up to them to decide whether they want to support the Labour party or not. They are correct, thats all that matters. The 4 Independents were Kingmakers, there is a definition of the term here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingmaker Thats what the Independants that got voted in are. Its a political term HubertCumberdale wrote: Once again you wouldn't be saying this if no independents had been elected because they’d either be part of the labour party or the liberals as it turns out they can chose to form a minority government if they wish and that is what they have done. They are independents, that is their advantage, good for them. No use crying like a baby all day long about it. No I wouldn't be saying this if whatever party received the most seats would run Government, and that is (clearly) not the case in all situations (coalition received the most seats, furthermore also the most votes both primary and preferred together). And as for the crying comment, I guess its not our problem if the country suffers because of it (even if we voted otherwise)....or is it? (you tell me?) HubertCumberdale wrote: Who cares what Gillard stated? She still needs 76 seats too. Oh it just shows there is a massive conflict on what is an considered to be a democracy and the way parliament is actually run in certain situations HubertCumberdale wrote: btw deteego if you really think this electoral process is undemocratic then why dont you go out and gather everyone that agrees with you and protest about it? I would be bothered if I had the time to take it anywhere (hell I might run as Independent just before a hung parliament happens and force the major parties to change parliamentary rules :p) When one thinks about it, without the 76 seat limit this wouldn't happen (but it might have consequences in other areas). You would still have a minority government in power, but they are the governing party (since they have most seats). Having to bargain for 76 seats is what caused this problem Edited by deteego: 8/9/2010 04:43:43 PM
HubertCumberdale Sep 8, 2010 4:47 PM	deteego wrote: My point is its not democracy (at least what just happened). I know how politics/voting works. Im saying (this) part of it is undemocratic there is nothing undemocratic about it, voters make choices, representatives make choices. etc. deteego wrote: Its not the same, because Greens do not give unanimous support for Labor (and neither do Independants). Otherwise Greens would give 100% preferences to Labor (and vice versa) which isn't the case They dont have to give unanimous support for Labor. Fact is all three groups have chosen to work together to form a government, that's all they have to do and that is exactly what they have done. deteego wrote: They are correct, thats all that matters. The 4 Independents were Kingmakers, there is a definition of the term here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingmaker Thats what the Independants that got voted in are. Its a political term It makes no difference and I'm not going to argue semantics with you. The point of this issue is are they dictators? I can answer that one for you. No, just no. deteego wrote: No I wouldn't be saying this if whatever party received the most votes would run Government, and that is (clearly) not the case in all situations. And as for the crying comment, I guess its not our problem if the country suffers because of it (even if we voted otherwise)....or is it? (you tell me?) Oh noes!! the sky is falling we have independents in the parliament now! we are so doomed i foresee much suffering and pestilence! deteego wrote: Oh it just shows there is a massive conflict on what is an considered to be a democracy and the way parliament is actually run in certain situations Well take it up with Labout then, politicians are hypocrites all the time that doesn't change facts.
deteego Sep 8, 2010 4:54 PM	HubertCumberdale wrote: there is nothing undemocratic about it, voters make choices, representatives make choices. etc. Thats like saying Hitler's form of government was democratic because he was voted in as a representative (its true!, he was constitutionally voted in, after which he changed all the laws to create a dictatorship like system with majority of power) HubertCumberdale wrote: They dont have to give unanimous support for Labor. Fact is all three groups have chosen to work together to form a government, that's all they have to do and that is exactly what they have done. All I am saying is that (technically speaking, according to the way the parliament is set up) that Liberals and Nationals can be regarded as a single party if both parties give themselves unanimous support (hence the coalition). Thats not the case for greens/Independants etc etc deteego wrote: It makes no difference and I'm not going to argue semantics with you. The point of this issue is are they dictators? I can answer that one for you. No, just no. Semantics make a difference. I never said they are dictators, I said they dictated what happened in that event (instead of going about it democratically). The two are not the same (and we wouldn't be arguing over semantics if you understood what they actually are) HubertCumberdale wrote: Oh noes!! the sky is falling we have independents in the parliament now! we are so doomed i foresee much suffering and pestilence! Uh, Independents would have been in government regardless (after all they did get voted in). They just wouldn't be able to influence who formed government (and in this case influence Parliamentary laws without creating bills). I don't care if Independents are in Government, what a lot of people are pissed off about is how they influenced the other parties and the democratic process. In my opinion, some changes they did to the parliamentary process (such as changing how question time is done) is going to be a mistake (and something that definitely should have been VOTED on through a bill, either by the parliament or the people, neither actually happened) Edited by deteego: 8/9/2010 05:04:49 PM
thor Sep 8, 2010 5:21 PM	The only thing i can say which both of you 2 will agree with is 1. Labor is now in government, the NBN will hopefully be built. 2. You 2 will never agree with the way you believe politics should be run :)
RDEFCON1 Sep 8, 2010 5:30 PM	@ray73864/Maxxi2 ok whatever, take Fuelwatch off the list. Doesn't change the point. I work in a variety of inner and outer Metro areas in Melbourne and Sydney, as well as from home, on a Next G card. I have no connection issues. I experience very few dropouts and when I do I can reconnect without issues. I don't find I have any speed issues. Of course, Melbourne and Sydney have very good Next G coverage, and some networks may have been under-engineered - but my experience is where the network is good - wireless is an excellent and flexible option for the mobile worker.
thor Sep 8, 2010 6:37 PM	@RDEFCON1 Next G is only good for base level mobile worker, any high level work would fail badly. The main thing you are missing is the government wont be looking after the network as per say, NBNCo will be. Beside from the missing hair (Bald), Quigley is known as a stuid and successful project manager. If anybody can get it done he can.
Gavk Sep 8, 2010 9:00 PM	You are extremely lucky if you have no speed issues on wireless. I ran a speedtest from my iPhone a moment ago and barely broke 100Kbps, 400+ms ping. Take a look at the wireless ISP section of Whirlpool, typical results are dismal.
Gavk Sep 8, 2010 9:02 PM	[[[I cannot believe how incredibly naive some people can be. Do you think an ISP will give me a full fibre 1000GBIt unlimited connection for 50 bucks. No, maybe a reduce 2,000 kbit connection for $100+ with penalties. It will be unaffordable for most people, and yet again, it is only for the heavy populated (labour supporting) areas, primarily on the eastern states who have a slight hope of getting it. ]]] wtf? iinet.net.au/nbn/ Phone with unlimited calls for $9, 100Mbps internet from $29.95 You know the N in NBN stands for National also? This isnt just going to be Sydney.... Take a look at the coverage maps on Nbnco.com.au maybe??
Tom606137 Sep 9, 2010 10:38 AM	Labor is now ahead in the two party prefered vote, by over 3000, check the aec website. Once again the Coalition may have claimed the 2PP vote too early. Hopefully he realises a decent broadband policy is needed at the next election and doesn't want to kill off the NBN...
deteego Sep 9, 2010 12:13 PM	The broadband wasn't a mandate for the election. If liberal went for a different policy they would have gained/lost votes in different areas. The only problem is that Liberals had an issue selling the good points about their policy (and the OTHER bad points about the NBN) but then again, Labor has always been the party that "sells" policies where as Liberals actually execute their policies properly
carl Sep 9, 2010 3:22 PM	ray73864 Sep 8, 2010 9:22 AM One has to remember that the ALP is a party of 1, the Coalition is a party of 2 (Libs and Nats), if you seperate those 2 parties from each other, then count up the votes, which party got the most primary votes then? Don't forget the seperate party again Country Liberals @Deteego Remember that Neither side deserved to be prime minister Liberals did not have enough votes to reach 76 seats nor did labor In fact Liberal/Country/Nationals got 73 seats In fact Labor/Greens got 73 seats Labor and Greens have always been public about their coalition The nail i believe in Coalitions coffin was the public distrust and neglience of regional australia, They even cut the the country and Nationals parties from discussions with the independants which represents regional Australia. It showed the independants that Liberal only care about the major cities and leaky boats, noone else matters. Tony Windsor and Oakshot even mentioned the diconnection of the priorities of Liberals and their disrespect for allowing Nationals and Country Liberals from contributing to policies.
deteego Sep 9, 2010 3:35 PM	carl wrote: @Deteego Remember that Neither side deserved to be prime minister Liberals did not have enough votes to reach 76 seats nor did labor In fact Liberal/Country/Nationals got 73 seats In fact Labor/Greens got 73 seats Labor and Greens have always been public about their coalition The nail i believe in Coalitions coffin was the public distrust and neglience of regional australia, They even cut the the country and Nationals parties from discussions with the independants which represents regional Australia. It showed the independants that Liberal only care about the major cities and leaky boats, noone else matters. Tony Windsor and Oakshot even mentioned the diconnection of the priorities of Liberals and their disrespect for allowing Nationals and Country Liberals from contributing to policies. In regards to broadband, all I said is if they adopted a more Labor like policy, the final outcome unlikely would have changed. In various online polls (with more general audiences), the vote for both broadband polls was roughly equal As for the way that Coalition treated Independents, I (sought of) agree with you there (remember though its a difficult situation, most Independants are former Nationals that got annoyed at the party and left to join Independants. Currently however problems are arising in regards to the Independant/Labor agreements (Wayne Swan just said there won't be any discussion on the Mining Tax because he claims its already been budgeted, even though one of the terms of agreement was to have a discussion over the tax). As I said earlier, this is going to be a very clunky parliament, and it would have most likely been much more beneficial if Liberal didn't win this time (because they are not going to get any flack, Labor will)
epimetheus Sep 9, 2010 4:36 PM	The headline to this article is misleading! Labor did not win this election. They bought it from a couple of brain-dead juveniles who put their own political gain before anything else. They maintain that the NBN was part of their decision. Windsor said there was an "enormous opportunity for regional Australians to engage with infrastructure of this century". Oh come on, what hogwash! Regional Australians will never and I mean NEVER
epimetheus Sep 9, 2010 4:42 PM	The headline to this article is misleading! Labor did not win this election. They bought it from a couple of brain-dead juveniles who put their own political gain before anything else. They maintain that the NBN was part of their decision. Windsor said there was an "enormous opportunity for regional Australians to engage with infrastructure of this century". Oh come on, what hogwash! Regional Australians will never and I mean NEVER receive any benefit from this ill-conceived Labor stupidity, the NBN. He also stated "I'm confirming for the Governor-General of Australia that today, I will give confidence and supply in Julia Gillard, unless exceptional circumstances determine otherwise." These "exceptional circumstances" included mal-administration, corruption, and "if people aren't fair dinkum about the documents they've signed" Er, hasn't he missed the bit about "if he and Bigshot don't get the promotions promised"? In my view it just means that two more inmates have joined the asylum called Labor government!
Gavk Sep 9, 2010 8:40 PM	Labor got more votes than anyone else, so yes, they did win. Liberal got 44 seats - labor got 71. How you class that as winning, who knows. The NBN will deliver loads of benefit to everyone, rural and metro, can't come any sooner :)
Tom Sep 10, 2010 4:41 PM	So what is the difference between Queen Elizabeth II, the Governor General and the Prime Minister of Australia? Only the Prime Minister of Australia has been unelected to office TWICE.
Mordd Sep 10, 2010 5:16 PM	Actually the Queen was also unelected to Office twice, first when she was married into royalty and became the Queen, and for a second time when her husband the King passed away and she became the soveriegn leader, while she is still the Queen previously she wasn't the head of state, now she is. So you can say the Queen has also been unelected to office twice. Except that Julia Gillard was elected as an MP, and we don't elect the Prime Minister anyway, so you're comment makes no sense Tom. The Prime Minister is always an elected MP who is the leader of the party able to form government which Julia has done by putting together a coalition of 76 members. We never elect the Prime Minister, we elect the MP's, get it right mate.
anonymous Sep 10, 2010 5:31 PM	@Mordd, and you're more than a little confused about who's who in the royal family, mate. Just get back OT and stick to the tech stuff ;-)
Scengy Sep 11, 2010 12:15 AM	Ok, so I can't be bothered with most of this, however I'd like to correct the person who earlier (2 days earlier to be fair) posted about 2-party preferred votes. The fact is that the 2-party preferred vote is still only 89.9% complete as of 9.46pm on 10th sept. And as each day passes the number of votes to Labor in the 2PP grows. It now stands at (2PP) Labor 5,921,195 Liberal/Nat Coalition 5,901,612 We're no longer talking hundreds, we're talking thousands. http://vtr.aec.gov.au/
Mordd Sep 13, 2010 4:36 PM	Well history wasn't my strong point anon, my point though was that we have never elected the Prime Minister, we've always elected individual MP's belonging to a Party (or Independent) who then form government based on their elected numbers. Comments about Julia Gillard not being elected as PM are disingenous and frankly plain wrong. We have never directly elected the PM, so Tom is just as confused as me then.