Tristan, you state "In fact, Liberal claims of “stimulus waste” are greatly exaggerated and their advertisements downright deceptive. At first, Liberal “attack ads” accused Labor of an “$8 billion waste” on “school halls”. This has now been revised to “up to $8 billion”.

Are you serious? This government has been a disgrace with its spending programs. Rather than being a mouthpiece for the left (or Labor), you need to do some homwework and be honest with the facts. Read the official reports that weigh up the evidence.

HIP alone wasted 40% of allocated resources ($1 billion).

It appears your solutions are spend, spend and spend.

You also contradict yourself. You argue for more and more spending, yet you cite authorities that levels of debt under Laborr are exaggerated.

Yes, some of your points are valid, housing and broadband, but (usual) your piece appears more about propaganda. Even faster broadband may have costs as more opportunities emerge to shift parts of products and services offshore to escape higher costs.

As you are a teacher, is that how you would sell your knowledge to youth? Fact is both major parties have strengths and weaknesses, although you (and others) prefer to call politics as some kind of football match (us and them). This is not the 1930s (hopefully never again), as even conservative parties have moved on

Chris; no I'm not contradicting myself on debt. I support extra investment in infrastructure, and in services and welfare on the following basis:

That there are the budgetary means to service any debt; and if debt will have to be serviced; that improvements in productivity and quality of life would make it worth it.

And when it comes to reforming welfare; introducing programs such as a NDIS - again I don't recommend piling up loads of debt. I suggest a levy to pay for the NDIS. Reform of tax is at the core of making improvements to the social wage possible and affordable; and ensuring debt from infrastructure investment can be serviced.

I do no recommend piling up American or European levels of public debt.

And I think it's amazing how with our negligible public debt; that there is very little emphasis on private and household debt.

Tristan,

fair enough on debt. It is mostly private, but reducing it will require that funding of many issues is funded elsewhere.

Interesting times ahead in this ultra-competitive international economy.

Whilst the issues of climate change and a carbon price have been mentioned during the election campaign, the greatest moral and economic challenge of our time does seem to have fallen off the radar.
Could it partly relate to last week’s admission by the US Government that a decade of satellite measurements by NOAA may be undermined by a faulty satellite. One reading of 612 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded in parts of Wisconsin. If similar errors have gone unnoticed for a decade, could this explain global warming?
Late last year we came very close to introducing an emissions trading scheme. At Copenhagen we were in the cheer leaders’ squad in favor of signing up to a heavy handed international treaty. Our new PM told us a few weeks ago, we need to begin to rethink the way we live and work. Now we realize that all this effort and talk was partly based on the data from a faulty satellite, as well as our East Anglia friends. What the electorate needs right now, is The Climate Sceptics party’s voice in the Parliament.
Link:
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful

Another cut and paste from the Labor pamphlets. These are not your thoughts only a regurgitation of party one liners.

No attempt is made to address the issue of public schools costs being nearly double that of private schools or that 60% of principals surveyed said that what the BER delivered was not their top infrastructure priority and about 20% did not even fall into their top 4 priorities.

Tristan, what exactly is the old fashioned technology that the coalition plan is looking at deploying?

Labor plans to bring the budget back to surplus within 3 years. Perhaps you could indicate one Labor plan that has even vaguely met budget?

Re: Coalition broadband policy, see below:

"up to $6.25 billion in joint public-private investment and grant funding for the optimisation of existing DSL networks, the building of an open access fibre backhaul, a satellite network and the creation of two wireless networks designed for rural/regional areas as well as outer metropolitan areas."

"under an Abbott Government, 97 per cent of Australians would receive a “minimum peak speed” of 12 megabits per second (Mbps)."
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/356440/speed_confusion_dogs_coalition_broadband_policy/

See more details at the URL provided - too much to include in a comment.

But as I note in my article: "Communications Minister Stephen Conroy expects the NBN to provide “speeds of up to 1,000 megabits per second” "

Everything I have written here I honestly believe. Many of my opinions lean towards bolder policies than the government is actually embracing. My arguments are much more than 'cut and paste' of govt policy.

eg: My arguments on a National Disability Insurance Scheme, and progressive tax, welfare and social wage reform.

I also make arguments for infrastrcuture investment, with a reasonable role for sustainable public debt - beyond what the government is willing to talk about.

And my opposition to privatisation extends to the experience of the former Hawke and Keating Labor governments.

Then there's by argument for massive investment in public housing, and support for pattern bargaining, and no erosion of wages and conditions in 'modernised Awards'.

Most of the above goes beyond ALP policy.

But if you support these ideas you're better voting ALP or Greens.

Tristan,
Though i agree to a degree with much you have to say i think the general lean of your article is bias and has little subjectivity.
By writing such an article you leave yourself wide open to people like shadow minister and their ignorant right wing crap. Labor have done some good things such as act quickly to the GFC and place investment into infrastructure, they initiated some tax reform and have managed to keep the economy stable. The NBN is a magnificent project with the real vision we expect from labor and health reform has potential though under done. Unfortunately most of these positives have been undone by some real clangers. The stimulas was successful but failed with the batts disaster and an inability to sell the BER properly or help people understand that costs were going to rise with such a program due to industry pressures, state administrations and greed. Helped by radio jocks that play to the lowest common denominator much of the good work has come undone.
In the end the choice is between the mad monk and big red, not much of a choice but when i consider that the lib's will do as they say and put us back to surplus and pay off the debt quickly i must consider at what cost. Then you look at labor and wonder if they can manage to reform the debt as they say. The biggest plus labor has and again didn't sell is Julia and the dumping of Rudd. In this act they have a second chance to show us they can do it right, Rudd was clearly not using team work and the hope is Julia will use the available tallent or do we go to Abbott and the Lib's with the sure collapse of health reform, education spending and any hope of genuine reform to anything except the selling off of the kitchen sink so they can brag about their surplus.

The Liberals are now saying they will work towards a $6.2 billion surplus - doubling the promised surplus of the ALP. (New annoucement just today - before this article was published)

But what does this mean at the end of the day? Prudent government pursue the right mix of stimulus, investment and restraint at the right time.

Simply saying 'our surplus is larger than yours' is really nowhere at the end of the day.

Too big a surplus could have a deflationary effect; and could occur in a context which sees insufficient investment in the infrastructure and services upon which future productivity, prosperity and quality of life depend.

So - As opposed to Tim Colebatch's assumptions - quoted in this article - the Libs are now promising a larger surplus. But whether they can DELIVER it is another issue entirely.

And finally - the Libs game of 'one-upsmanship' on a projected surplus is nowhere outside the full context; the appropriate economic mix - stimulus, investment, restraint - at the right time, targeted properly, and of the required quantity...

Given the Libs' inclination towards a 'scorched earth' policy here - and what it would mean, it's no wonder Abbott is running from a proper economic debate.

Re: my last post.

There was a typo. It should have read:

"(New annoucement just today - AFTER this article was published)"

that is: The Lib annoucement on their project surplus was annouced AFTER this article was published.

Issues: the proposed envisaged cuts to health, jobs/employment, police services, educational services and every aspect of our lives given the disgraceful waste of capital LABOR instigated and fuelled during their short term.

Capital that NOW has to be paid by all Australians in addition to the high costs of food prices, utilities fuel clothing and other items that are not caused by choice in many situations, not caused by State governance - remember, what goes around comes around, and a country in a deficit of Billions will IMPACT greatly upon all Australians.

If the Libs do their job 'right' again as they did last time under Howard, they will be able to stamp out the DEBT in a relatively short period of time, all as a result of Labor's lack of competency, lack of vision, and hyperactive and impulsive behaviour.

As Australians, under the Liberal Leadership, we may just be the recipients of enjoying the fruits again of a country with lower costs of living, families not struggling this time next year.

Tristan,

The term you used was inferior technology. In engineering this would only be the case if the technology was more expensive and delivered less.

A Ferrari has superior technology to a Ford Falcon, but unless you are looking at driving at 300kmph the additional expense does not deliver any benefits.

The thread,

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10838

Clearly shows that there is no function that Julia Gillard has announced that the new NBN can do that the coalition's option can't, and that the coalition's option can be rolled out to the NBN format as required when the fiscal situation is better.

The NBN is more than we need now, at time when we can't afford it.

If I was flush with cash I would buy a Ferrari, presently I buy something fit for purpose.

As far as the BER is concerned, what you posted selectively ignores the genuine criticisms of the program. 2.7% lodged formal complaints against a "free gift" 60% of principles polled thought the money should have been spent on more important infrastructure, and that they did not get value for the money spent.

An important point is that with the best technology - approaching 100 times faster - you future-proof yourself.

What Abbott has offered will be a relatively short-term measure - and in relatively short order will have to be a replaced. That's why I think it's so ironic that Abbott's prime focus is 'waste, waste, waste. Abbott's broadband alone is thus a $6 billion waste.

Another issue is bandwidth - and current restrictions on internet usage.

How many people are sick of going past their download limit, and having their connection slowed ridiculously; or fined astronomical amounts?

With Labor's plan, bandwidth would be so great that there would be no current practical limit to bandwidth. So we could download or direct stream movies whenever we wanted. Or download computer games if that's what we were interested in. Or have live video conferencing; 'virtual lectures' and presentations: with tomorrow's technology, maybe even holograms.

The point being this technology should future proof us for a very long time. There's a lot we can do with this technology now - there will be even more in the future.

Tristan,

That is where the major misconception is. Virtually nothing of what the coalition is installing will have to be replaced. Nearly all of the upgrades will be required eventually in the NBN.

The additional $37bn is to replace the final cables to individual houses will attract interest at current treasury bond rates of $2.6bn a year or nearly $400 per household.

At a very optimistic take up rate of 80% (considering that 20% don't have computers) this is $40 per month on interest per household. Pay back over 10 years (a long time for any project) would be a further $60 per month.

So just to cover the installation costs over 10 years the cost to the consumer would be $100 per month per house hold before the maintenance or actual provision of internet access is included.

This is going to make the BER look like a picnic. Just like the lane cove and cross city tunnels, the NBN company is going to fold and the only one to pick up the tab will be the tax payer.

Considering that nearly all infrastructure such as roads has desperate needs right now, paying billions for needs that may or may not materialize in a few decades is a joke.

I also see you are still ducking the BER issue.

Quick note re: BER.

This was investment AND stimulus.

Because of the stimulus motive: There was standardisation in order to get projects off the ground quickly.

Things would have been different were it not for the GFC.

As it is, despite the problems, schools across the nation have assets that will be of value to them for decades to come.

Tristan,

You offer a lot of excuses for a lot of mediocrity by Labor. Thank heavens half of the population does not agree with you, or a lot more money would be wasted and spent as if it grew on trees.

Good ideas implemented badly is bad policy.

Only a rusted on leftie like Tristan could try and pretend the BER and insulation programs were anything other than a display of incompetence.

Chris; You're right that without an Opposition there would be no pressure on governments to perform at their best.

There are definately things Labor could have and should have done better.

And from a Left-critical perspective there are issues as well - eg: failure to provide for pattern bargaining, need to fulfil the promise that no worker be worse of under modernised Awards. More too - eg: need for tax reform, respond to an ageing population, proliferationof low-paid work - in light of this hence the need to reform welfare and strengthen the social wage...

So there are issues with the government. But the risk of a Abbott government is just too great to vote against Labor; even if ideally the government should be held a account in areas where they should have done better.

Under Abbott the mining tax would go. There would be cuts in health and education. The Liberal Parental Leave scheme would see poor households subsidising the wealthy. Gillard's support for parental leave for fathers is good policy too; and a good response to Abbott's policy.

There are many positive reasons for voting Labor too, despite areas in which the government should have done better.

Tristan,

It will be interesting to see what happens if the Coalition win. I would be not so sure of your claims. Although I think tough times are coming for the economy because of what may happen overseas(I hope i am wrong), it is worth remembering that welfare spending reached record levels under Howard (despite some welfare reform). This was despite strong levels of economic growth

Also, environmental spending went down under Rudd when compared to Howard's last years, at least looking at 2009-2010 data.