Belly, rather than say "NO" it is often better from one's point of view, to say yes, in principal, then kick like hell about the details. Your lot have been using it to make some Libs look silly for years.

The answer is still no, but the other party has to explain why the whole thing failed.

It would appear that some of the coalition pollies have actually stood back & thought about Labor tactics, long enough to learn a few lessons.

If they are smart enough to do this more often, life may become a bit more difficult for some of your lot.

Should be fun to watch.

Belly, the health agreement that only a year ago Labor hailed as the greatest reform in health care since medicare is dead. The new agreement gives the states $16.4bn and lots more in the future with very little change to the way they work.

What we have is a signed heads of agreement. A heads of agreement is a broad brush outline of what is intended and sets a framework for the future negotiations. There is no contractual obligations on any side, nor is there anything specific from which legislation can be drawn.

It is at best a starting point for future negotiations, yet Labor is trumpeting it as a break through.

If you disagree with me, please tell me what is actually finalised and is to be implemented.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Shadow Minister:

The following article may help clarify things for you:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/14/3137745.htm
"New Agreement a healthy way to run the system," by
Alan Kohler, Monday, Feb. 14, 2011.

"The health deal agreed yesterday is almost entirely good and should be used as a template for everything else states do, including education and public transport."

Courageous, or should I call you Jockey,

Seeing you were banned several times before permanently under different names, for posting just the same abuse, there is no reason to expect more than the mindless jabbering you posted previously.

Not once have you tried to debate me. I don't think you even understand the issue, as you have not tried to contribute.

Lexi,

The article again indicates the general intent. There is no detail on maintaining rural facilities, or any index for efficiency here or in different states, or even checks and balances.

What is omitted is not just fine print.