Tag Archives: election 2010

I’m No Tech Head But…

There are a few vital facts missing from the debate over the two broadband policies. In fact, there is some misinformation and scare-mongering going on. Shocking, I know. And it’s only too easy to be persuaded by these inaccuracies and hyperbole when few voters understand the technicalities of the two broadband infrastructure proposals. So let me clear up some mysteries for you and Mr. Abbott (who, we discovered from his 7.30 Report interview with Kerry O’Brien, is “no Bill Gates.”)

First of all, Tony Abbott questioned on the ABC1 Insiders program why Australians should have to pay more than other countries per household for an NBN:

BARRIE CASSIDY: But if we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world why can’t we have the best?

TONY ABBOTT: Well if you look at other countries which have got good broadband systems like Korea for instance, like Singapore for instance, they’ve spent nothing like $5,000 per household to create a government run monopoly which inevitably given the history of this Government is much more likely to be a white elephant than a screaming success.

Well, not to worry Mr Abbott. I can explain why Korea and Singapore have not had to spend $5,000 per household on their broadband network… because Australia’s has the sixth biggest area mass (7,741,220 sq km) in the world. South Korea has the 108th biggest area mass (99,720 sq km) and Singapore has 192nd biggest area mass (697 sq. km) – smaller than Hong Kong, and comparatively the same differences exist in land mass. Not to mention that South Korea has a larger population than Australia, 48,636,068 people to 21,515,754 people. So, if you have to lay cable to each household/dwelling in Australia, a lot more cable is required to connect everyone to the broadband network (reminder: we are the only country which is also a Continent in itself).

Mr Abbott is also concerned about putting money into just one technology, fibre optic cable:

TONY ABBOTT: Of course I do Barrie. Of course I appreciate the importance of these things. But let’s not assume that we should put all our eggs in the high fibre basket either.

and on the 7.30 Report he said,

TONY ABBOTT: Well, as I said, I think we can do something that will be good for a lot less price. Our system will give Australians national broadband, but it won’t be nationalised broadband and it won’t depend on just one fibre technology.

So, why should we put all of our eggs in the fibre basket? Because the signals that shoot down fibre cable travel at the speed of light. Last time I checked, you can’t get any faster than that. This is cutting-edge, top of the range broadband technology and the fibre cable itself can’t actually be improved upon in terms of speed, it is only the fibre optic (data) receivers that receive the signals from the cable that can be upgraded in the future. Thus, investing in fibre technology is a long-term, value-for-money solution.

But Mr Abbott asks, what about wireless?

TONY ABBOTT: …I mean all of the people who are making daily use of telecommunications services, increasingly they’re using wireless technology.

All those people who are sending messages from their iPhones and BlackBerries, all those people sitting in airport lounges using their computers, I mean they do not rely on fixed line services.

So why should the Government be so obsessive about fixed line services?

Well, that is also easily explained. Those who use wireless internet on their laptop computers (at home or in a public place like an airport or a café) nearly always rely on a fixed line service (a modem or a router) in the immediate vicinity to interact with, which then sends a signal (through the air or down a cable) to a local exchange point which then continues the signal on to its destination (local, Australia, international) which is usually a server or an end user. If a person is using wireless through their USB modem or their mobile phone, although the initial signal travels through the air to a tower, it is still reliant upon cable technology under the ground to send the data information to its destination and then back to the user. So basically, a strong cable network makes wireless much faster and that is how it will be a reliable technology for the future. And it is important to note that fibre optic cable (which transmits flashes of light) is faster than copper (which transmits electrical pulses) as there is lower signal degredation over long distances.

Later in his interview with Barrie Cassidy, Abbott professed his hope for wireless to greatly improve:

TONY ABBOTT: Well look there are a lot of claims around. I mean there are a lot of people claiming that wireless technology is going to give us very high speeds in the not too distant future.

Once again, wireless will never be the primary technology to deliver broadband because the more users at any one time, the slower the electromagnetic waves are sent and received. Shadow Communications Minister Tony Smith, basically affirmed this point in his vague and non-specific reply to Tony Jones on Lateline, 18th August, 2010:

TONY JONES: OK, well that covers your answer to the spectrum thing. Let me ask you this though: isn’t it true that the more people using wireless technology that use it, the slower the speeds. Isn’t that a simple mathematical equation?

TONY SMITH: Well, wireless is contended, but the speeds and the technology is getting better all the time, and we are not only promising wireless, Tony.

The potential problem with the Coalition’s broadband policy is that it relies heavily on private sector investment in fixed wireless broadband and a fibre optic broadband “backbone.” To lay any cable, fibre usually being the most expensive per metre, is a substantial investment risk, with a likelihood of it being unable to deliver fast enough returns. Will the private sector be enticed by this reality? It is a very expensive exercise which makes one think that perhaps it is better for the Federal Government to provide a strong and unified investment in quality infrastructure which will deliver significant outcomes for levels of productivity and quality of living in the future.

Don’t get me wrong, there are uncertainties with Labor’s National Broadband Network (NBN), such as the lack of a cost-benefit analysis of the NBN, a large expected cost of $43 billion, the potential for cost blow-outs and a characteristic inability of the government to spruik and sell the real, more vital and appealing benefits of the NBN. Instead we are being fed the e-health line (online medical consultations via video, subsidised by Medicare), an important outcome but not the central benefit of the NBN.

Ultimately there is a very simple decision to be made when comparing the two policies:

Do you believe that the government should primarily fund vital infrastructure like the NBN (with the risk of slow returns), which looks beyond our current needs and attempts to keep us in line with the rest of the world on broadband?
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy: It’s not an argument about can we afford to build the National Broadband Network…; it’s whether or not we can afford not to build it. Our competitors are building fibre networks; we are falling further and further behind.

Or do you believe that the private sector (with incentives from the government) should (and will) build broadband infrastructure which will be more varied in its use of technologies, but will not provide a unified network/plan?
Abbott: I would rather rely on a comparative market than depend upon a monopolistic government to provide us with decent services here.

…what we need is something which is affordable and deliverable and I think that’s what the Coalition is offering.

NBN Co Ltd Home Page – NOTE: further information on the NBN can be found on the Publications page of this site
Liberal Party website ‘The Coalition’s plan for real action on Broadband and Telecommunications’ – NOTE: this link will open a PDF document detailing the Coalition’s policy
Labor Blog – ‘Help Spread the Facts – National Broadband Network’, 14/8/2010
‘Abbott quizzed on broadband and economy’, The 7.30 Report, 10/8/2010
‘Conroy, Smith debate NBN’, Lateline, 18/8/2010
‘Abbott defends Coalition’s broadband plan’, Insiders, 15/8/2010
‘Gillard promises video doctors with NBN’, IT News, Liz Tay, 17/8/2010
Statistics from The CIA World Factbook

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

Thousand Dollar Babies

There’s a big difference between the Labor Party’s Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme and the Coalition’s Paid Parental Leave policy, in more than just the simple monetary figures. Have a scan over the policies and see if you can find the disparity:

Coalition –
The Coalition’s Paid Parental Leave scheme will:
1. provide mothers with 26 weeks paid parental leave, at full replacement wage (up to a maximum salary of $150,000 per annum) or the Federal Minimum Wage, whichever is greater;
2. include superannuation contributions at the mandatory rate of nine per cent;
3. allow two out of the 26 weeks to be dedicated paternity leave to be used simultaneously or separately to the mother’s leave, paid at the father’s replacement wage (up to a maximum of $150,000 per annum) or the Federal Minimum Wage, whichever is greater, plus superannuation.
4. use the same work test and eligibility conditions as the Government’s recently legislated scheme;
5. be funded by a 1.5 percent levy on companies with taxable incomes in excess of $5 million. The levy will apply only to taxable income in excess of $5 million.
6. be paid and administered by the Family Assistance Office and will not impose an unnecessary administrative burden on employers, unlike Labor’s scheme

Labor –
Paid Parental Leave:
* is government funded
* is for eligible working parents of children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2011
* can be transferred to the other parent
* is paid at the National Minimum Wage – currently $570 a week before tax*
* is for up to 18 weeks
* can be taken any time within the first year after birth.

*The 2010 national minimum wage order has been set at $569.90 per week, calculated on the basis of a week of 38 ordinary hours, or $15 per hour. The PPL scheme payment is calculated at the hourly rate of $15.

You see, with the Coalition’s policy those in high-paying jobs (earning up to $150,000 P.A.) who become parents will receive their normal wage from the government, and those earning much less (eg. $40,000 P.A.) will receive their normal wage from the government for 6 and a half months (26 weeks). Now, if I were in the higher income bracket I would be pretty darn happy, whilst if I were in the lower income bracket I would be feeling pretty ripped off. This is because, essentially, the Coalition has put forth a policy that favours the (upper) middle to upper class over those in the so-called “working class” (I cringe to use such general terms, but they are necessary to make a clear point). In other words, the Coalition’s policy unintentionally sends a message that the relationship between a newborn child and its mother (and/or father) from Toorak is worth more money than the relationship between a newborn child and its mother (and/or father) from Dandenong. And the farce of it is that we will all, as consumers, be paying for the Coalition’s PPL policy when big businesses put up the price of their products to cover the 1.5 percent hike in company tax rates.

It will be paid for with a modest levy of 1.5 percent levy on companies with taxable incomes in excess of $5 million, which will be offset by a 1.5 percent cut in the company tax rate from 1 July 2013.

And as the SMH reports, “taxpayers will supplement the scheme to cover parental leave for Commonwealth public servants.”

One cannot deny the logic and practicalities of the situation: that businesses (who feel the pressure from their shareholders) will not allow their annual profits to reduce as the bottom-line is everything and instead we will all share the burden. So why then should the middle and upper classes profit more from this PPL policy, if we all have to pay for it? And even if the most staunch advocates of this policy deny that the burden will be passed on to consumers, why still should one family be paid more than another by the government?

The Coalition’s policy is in stark contrast to the Labor Party’s Scheme which pays every mother (or father) the same amount of money, the minimum wage of $569.90 per week, for 4 and a half months (18 weeks) – parents will be able choose to receive paid parental leave or the baby bonus when their child is born (same as the Coalition). Labor’s policy is fairer, more equitable and does not favour (monetarily) any family or parent-child relationship over another. This policy avoids discriminating between low, middle and high income earners, unlike the Coalition’s policy which, by providing different amounts to people in different income brackets, will reinforce pre-existing class barriers and the financial burden already felt by those earning a lower income. Now I’m not advocating for the reverse either (a Robin Hood-approach), I am merely advocating the position that monetary assistance from the government, especially when it relates to the relationship between any newborn child and its parent, should be given equally.

Paid Parental Leave is one of the most important policies to be put forth by both parties in this election and they should both be commended for bringing Australia into the 21st century on this issue as we are well behind many other countries like Italy, Canada, Austria, Belgium and France.

But when you are judging both policies, ask yourself these three questions:

1. Would you expect all consumers to (indirectly) fund a Paid Parental Leave scheme?
2. Do you then deduce that it is reasonable that these payments should foster and ensure that the rich maintain the lifestyle that they are accustomed to, whilst the poor continue to struggle with the costs of living?
and so, when it comes to a Paid Parental Leave scheme for all Australians
3. Should your parent-child relationship be worth more (or less) than someone else’s?

The Coalition – Real Action on Paid Parental Leave policy
Australian Labor Party (Australian Government, Family Assistance Office) – Paid Parental Leave scheme
SMH Online – ‘Abbott delays start of paid parental leave scheme, eases blow on business’, Phillip Coorey, 3 August 2010

Productivity Commission – Paid Maternity, Paternity and Parental Leave
Business Spectator – ‘Abbott’s MPs to fight parental leave plan’ 6 August 2010
The Greens MPs – ‘A Strong Paid Parental Leave Scheme’ 25 May 2010
Liberal Party – Full policy document on Paid Parental Leave – will open as a PDF file

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

It’s official, personality in politics is a thing of the past

Love him or loathe him, Bob Hawke has personality in spades. Sunday night’s screening of ‘Hawke’ on Channel Ten and the subsequent Hawke interview was a thought-provoking reminder of this fact. Why so? Well, how many politicians can you think of today that are all of these things: genuine, a visionary, over-qualified and love (and I mean really love) this nation wholeheartedly? (thinking time… … time’s up!) Anyone? No, I didn’t think so. And if you did come up with a name, I’m guessing their credentials are but a shadow of Hawke’s.

Of course, all politicians (and people) have their flaws but Hawke certainly made up for this with his sparkling “man of the people” qualities and charm. Yes, it was a different time, but has Australia and Australian politics changed so much that politicians cannot have a personality? If they do have one, their genuine one, it’s certainly not on display in “campaign mode” at the moment. And this is quite surprising because prior to Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott’s rise to the leadership of their respective political parties, it was their straight-talking and self-deprecating humour that set both of them apart from the rest and was a positive quality admired by many.

Now all that features in political speech is a rehearsed and pre-programmed language which, unfortunately, is on constant loop. Julia Gillard’s interview with Karen Middleton on the day the election was called is a prime example of this. “I believe”, “the Australian people”, “moving forward”, “move Australia forward”, “sustainable population”, “budget into surplus”, and so on. Then there’s Abbott with “dead, buried and cremated”, “stop the boats” “stand up for Australia”, “real action” and an oldie but a goodie “great big new tax.” At least in past campaigns there used to be a little spontaneity in interviews, a capacity for vision (NOTE: you don’t need to spend money to have vision), and a quite a lot of substance in policy proposals. I am yet to see any of this as yet in the Gillard vs. Abbott stoush.

This election campaign has begun as a battle of slogans, baby-kissing, hand-shaking, fear-mongering and hyperbolic slugfests and there’s no evidence to suggest that anything will change. Why? I’m putting it down to the rise and rise of political correctness and hypersensitivity, and hence the permeation of political “surface-speak.” The Australian people (groan…sorry) deserve honesty (as much as is possible in politics anyway), policies laid bare for public scrutiny (not 12 point plans or endless generalisations) and a lot more genuineness from the people that govern and seek to govern this country. Have the times changed so much that the values we still boast to have are now extinct? Or is it just in the nation’s leaders that the values of directness, loyalty and passion are not promoted enough? I hope only the latter is the case, which in itself is a shame.

On a positive note, if you don’t like what you are hearing from your representatives… if slogans, repetitive answers and skeletal policies are an insult to your intelligence and your vote, then make your voice heard (as is already the case on Twitter). Make the media hold politicians to account, instead of asking inane questions and accepting dull, substanceless and scripted answers. We are moving backwards, and it is time to “move forward” to substance, directness, genuineness and PERSONALITY. Australian’s can see right through the crap and in most cases, reward those who are genuine, so Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott… Show us more of the real “you” (because you were impressive and engaging to begin with) and then maybe this campaign won’t be so boring, disenchanting and lifeless for us after all.

Transcript of Julia Gillard’s opening statement at her first election press conference, Parliament House, Canberra, Saturday 17 July

Transcript of Tony Abbott’s statement at his first election press conference, Brisbane, Saturday 17 July

‘Our Action Contract’ Liberal Party Australia’s 12 Point Plan, NOTE: this link will open a PDF file from the Liberal Party’s website

Julia Gillard and the ALP’s Agenda, NOTE: this link will go the the ALP’s policy page on their website

Watch the ‘Hawke’ telemovie on Channel 10’s website

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics