Discussion Random Discussion

[Periphery]

optus was the big winner out of turnbulls copper **** up. i think optus are still pinching them selves that the gov actually did the deal

I'm not fully over all the details but Telstra got $11bn from the govt for its copper and HFC network. Optus got $800m. Both are probably big winners. Either way we are losers.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Unfortunately the Thatcher type conservatives spun the line that it was bad to run government debt so have limited any kind of infrastructure spending. It was a ploy to sell off public assets but means we are too scared of running debts. The NBN was a major stuff up because it was the first huge public infrastructure spend in years and now future governments will be even less likely to want to put these things up. The media is complicit too, the school halls "fiasco" was actually great for a lot of government and private schools as they have spaces they can lease out for sports or community groups. My kids school has karate, craft groups, christians and a whole lot of others paying to use the space. It was a fantastic thing for most of them but the public were lead to believe it was disaster.

Like the desal plant it was good to have the thing in the end, but why did the public need to spend more than it should have cost?

It makes sense to build infrastructure.
It does not make sense to buy a Ford for the price of a Ferrari.

 

[Joffaboy]

Why didn't they go for the republic then?
Nice conspiracy but it comes down to your personal opinion.

I dont know the mental gymnastics to segway from the NBN to the Rupublic like it is a linear progression.

Not a conspiracy. It is a fact that the LNP is in Murdoch's pocket.

There were numerous stories in the GG constantly attacking the ALP model NBN until it was changed to the slower LNP NBN with the effect of making pay TV more viable.

 

[StCicatriz]

I'm not fully over all the details but Telstra got $11bn from the govt for its copper and HFC network. Optus got $800m. Both are probably big winners. Either way we are losers.

yeah they were big numbers and then when they lifted the hood on optus's copper they discovered that the majority of it needed repairing, the cost of repairing it from memory was around the price they paid for it

 

[gringo2011]

optus was the big winner out of turnbulls copper **** up. i think optus are still pinching them selves that the gov actually did the deal

Optus have had a good run in Oz, tax payers paid them to set up as the law makes it so that to stop monopolising we gave them free access to all telstra infrastructure and telstra set them up in competition by supplying technical staff free of cost.

 

[Periphery]

yeah they were big numbers and then when they lifted the hood on optus's copper they discovered that the majority of it needed repairing, the cost of repairing it from memory was around the price they paid for it

I just assumed that was the case for all the copper.

 

[borderbarry]

It annoys me when you see one Political Party undermining the good work done by the previous government just to score political points. We saw it here with the NBN, with the Collins submarines, and numerous other projects. The Yanks are about to see it with Obamacare.

 

[Joffaboy]

It annoys me when you see one Political Party undermining the good work done by the previous government just to score political points. We saw it here with the NBN, with the Collins submarines, and numerous other projects. The Yanks are about to see it with Obamacare.

Great point. Was just in China and they get enormous projects done.

You point out the strength and parallel weakness of a democracy.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I dont know the mental gymnastics to segway from the NBN to the Rupublic like it is a linear progression.

Not a conspiracy. It is a fact that the LNP is in Murdoch's pocket.

There were numerous stories in the GG constantly attacking the ALP model NBN until it was changed to the slower LNP NBN with the effect of making pay TV more viable.

Murdoch wanted a republic.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It annoys me when you see one Political Party undermining the good work done by the previous government just to score political points. We saw it here with the NBN, with the Collins submarines, and numerous other projects. The Yanks are about to see it with Obamacare.

Good work or bad work, once its committed to its a waste to undermine it.

 

[Plumber66]

Pretty sure that when they built those projects, one eye was on cost.
Why is the harbour bridge shaped like that ?....

____________________________________
As a result of the tendering process, the government received twenty proposals from six companies; on 24 March 1924 the contract was awarded to English firm Dorman Long and Co Ltd, of Middlesbrough well known as the contractors who built the similar Tyne Bridge of Newcastle Upon Tyne, for an arch bridge at a quoted price of AU£4,217,721 11s 10d.[4][26] The arch design was cheaper than alternative cantilever and suspension bridge proposals, and also provided greater rigidity making it better suited for the heavy loads expected
___________________________________

Yes there was a lot of thought about it and it was done right. Imagine if the government had UNplanned it again after it was awarded to the contractor.
( The contractor was selected 4 years after the decision to build it ).

Fasttrack to the desal plant and we have an idiotic overpriced gut reaction.
Yay we have the most expensive desal plant in the world, i wonder if tourists will come and look at it.
Yes infrastructure is good and can provide jobs. No. The jobs shouldn't include paying people to do nothing and lining the pockets of organised criminals.
Spend it , but don't waste it.

If citylink was not built , do you think all those cars would just stay away?
Guess what , trucks on the west need to go east and vice versa.
But yea zigzagging across congested bridges on the yarra was fine. You are still free to get off and go that way if you want.

Melbourne have this crappy setup where there is no easy route from east to west without going through the CBD.
Even the route from South-East to North is crappy. Eastlink amazingly delivers you into the CBD an astounding 4km north of Citylink. Big help on the trip to Sydney. Politicians keep saying they want cars out of the CBD. Well start by getting rid of the cars that don't want to be there in the first place.

Problem and point is this:

Even the dopiest idiot can see that as population increases, so does road congestion.

So we keep building things that become redundant in no time. City link was good for how long?

No vision for public transport. They put land aside for a light rail on the Eastern. How's that coming along?

At least Andrews is getting rid of crossings.

Sadly, too many people know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Problem and point is this:

Even the dopiest idiot can see that as population increases, so does road congestion.

So we keep building things that become redundant in no time. City link was good for how long?

No vision for public transport. They put land aside for a light rail on the Eastern. How's that coming along?

At least Andrews is getting rid of crossings.

Sadly, too many people know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

I agree with most of that.
Its not so long since they built the Dingley bypass in two lanes, then by the time it joins the Dandenong bypass the new road is being built with 3 lanes. So the "old" new road is now a bottleneck and whats with all the traffic lights in what should otherwise be a freeway.

Public transport is very capital intensive, our rail system has no hope of catering to anyone except a select few who live close to the tracks. The further out you get in the burbs the less chance of living near one of the narrow lines of rail.

 

[Plumber66]

How about those joint-strike fighter planes?

Now there's some seriously good use of tax payers money!

Maybe they can base them at Tamworth to attract more home buyers and solve the housing affordability issue in one hit.

 

[Plumber66]

I agree with most of that.
Its not so long since they built the Dingley bypass in two lanes, then by the time it joins the Dandenong bypass the new road is being built with 3 lanes. So the "old" new road is now a bottleneck and whats with all the traffic lights in what should otherwise be a freeway.

Public transport is very capital intensive, our rail system has no hope of catering to anyone except a select few who live close to the tracks. The further out you get in the burbs the less chance of living near one of the narrow lines of rail.

Yes.

But if you are going to permit high density housing, you need public transport to support it.

 

[gringo2011]

I agree with most of that.
Its not so long since they built the Dingley bypass in two lanes, then by the time it joins the Dandenong bypass the new road is being built with 3 lanes. So the "old" new road is now a bottleneck and whats with all the traffic lights in what should otherwise be a freeway.

Public transport is very capital intensive, our rail system has no hope of catering to anyone except a select few who live close to the tracks. The further out you get in the burbs the less chance of living near one of the narrow lines of rail.

The western ring road was the same it was at capacity before the lanes were painted in. We do everything in a 4 year term and have no interest in leaving the next party something that works well if it doesn't look good for the now. Paying companies to run public transport who don't do it well and have to skim profit for shareholders doesn't stack up either.

 

[Plumber66]

The western ring road was the same it was at capacity before the lanes were painted in. We do everything in a 4 year term and have no interest in leaving the next party something that works well if it doesn't look good for the now. Paying companies to run public transport who don't do it well and have to skim profit for shareholders doesn't stack up either.

Is it reasonable to say that there are certain services that should be provided by Government?

Namely the ones that aren't profitable. Once you throw something in private hands, profit becomes the objective over quality.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Is it reasonable to say that there are certain services that should be provided by Government?

Namely the ones that aren't profitable. Once you throw something in private hands, profit becomes the objective over quality.

It depends how its done.
For example , distributing welfare funds will never be profitable.
But if the underlying infrastructure is too costly why not something like.
-----------------
Must distribute the funds as determined by the Australian government for Z years.
Must have X standard of service.
Penalties apply to breaches.
Bonuses apply to above normal quality of service.
Please submit tenders.
______________
So yes you have a company driven by profit, but in seeking those profits they will try to make their system as smooth as possible.
They can't actually change what they give for welfare, they can only try to become more efficient and keep more of their payments for their pockets.

The outcome will depend how the terms are specified.
Do a bad job of the tender documents and it comes out bad.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The western ring road was the same it was at capacity before the lanes were painted in. We do everything in a 4 year term and have no interest in leaving the next party something that works well if it doesn't look good for the now. Paying companies to run public transport who don't do it well and have to skim profit for shareholders doesn't stack up either.

The transport operators are hamstrung by the old infrastructure which is not owned by them.
Do you think its normal that train tracks can't be used on hot days because the tracks buckle? To have trains that have to queue behind each other because there are not enough tracks?
Shit! Places like India and Malaysia have some pretty hot weather and their trains keep going. But it costs more here because our construction workers are special.

 

[CALL ME SNAKE]

Great point. Was just in China and they get enormous projects done.

You point out the strength and parallel weakness of a democracy.

Would be interesting to see the average number of deaths they have on building sites compared to Aust.
People can dislike some of our more 'militant' unions here but our safety record is very good.
Even with the CFMEU being very strict with health n safety it is still a very dangerous industry with many deaths each yr.
Some of the countries erecting buildings at break neck spead (China, UAE for eg) unfortunately have atrocious fatality numbers.

 

[Plumber66]

Would be interesting to see the average number of deaths they have on building sites compared to Aust.
People can dislike some of our more 'militant' unions here but our safety record is very good.
Even with the CFMEU being very strict with health n safety it is still a very dangerous industry with many deaths each yr.
Some of the countries erecting buildings at break neck spead (China, UAE for eg) unfortunately have atrocious fatality numbers.

What's wrong with bamboo scaffolding?

My grandad was a builder and he wore his hanky with 4 corners knotted for years and nothing happened to him.

None of this Nancy boy hard hats that you see today!

 

[Plumber66]

Would be interesting to see the average number of deaths they have on building sites compared to Aust.
People can dislike some of our more 'militant' unions here but our safety record is very good.
Even with the CFMEU being very strict with health n safety it is still a very dangerous industry with many deaths each yr.
Some of the countries erecting buildings at break neck spead (China, UAE for eg) unfortunately have atrocious fatality numbers.

On a serious note.

Any employee that has annual leave, sick pay, super and minimum wages owe it to those unions that people love to bash.

Worker entitlements and safety were not provided out of generosity from employers.

 

[PoppedCorn]

No
We owe it to ourselves who stuck together as a group and demanded this stuff
Unions are only there to speak for members.....until you get high up and then they're as crooked as most politicians

At the base level I'm all for it
Have been for years
But as usual as you get higher up the chain it's all crooks and bullcrap

 

[Periphery]

Is it reasonable to say that there are certain services that should be provided by Government?

Namely the ones that aren't profitable. Once you throw something in private hands, profit becomes the objective over quality.

IMO anything that is naturally monopolistic or too vital to society to allow for the introduction of a profit motive should be 100% government owned and operated. Transport networks, energy infrastructure/distribution, water, gas, telecommunications infrastructure, welfare systems, prisons, postal networks, are the main ones I can think of at the moment.

I don't think profit should have anything to do with it. There will be things that the market can't/wont supply because it's not profitable, but there are also things that are profitable that are too important to let profit motives compromise. It's important to remember that governments can get benefits in ways that aren't reflected in profits due to the flow on effects that it can have on society.

It depends how its done.
For example , distributing welfare funds will never be profitable.
But if the underlying infrastructure is too costly why not something like.
-----------------
Must distribute the funds as determined by the Australian government for Z years.
Must have X standard of service.
Penalties apply to breaches.
Bonuses apply to above normal quality of service.
Please submit tenders.
______________
So yes you have a company driven by profit, but in seeking those profits they will try to make their system as smooth as possible.
They can't actually change what they give for welfare, they can only try to become more efficient and keep more of their payments for their pockets.

The outcome will depend how the terms are specified.
Do a bad job of the tender documents and it comes out bad.

I'm pretty sure this is basically what happens now. It doesn't work. All it means is that the government has to pay the private companies profits AND for someone to make sure the private firms are operating to the required standards. Of course the 2nd bit very rarely happens so the private interests just end up screwing the public out of money for a service that is run worse than if the government was running it. See Job service advisors and the privatisation of electricity providers for recent examples.

If it's profitable for business to run then it'd still be cheaper for the government to do it itself.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

IMO anything that is naturally monopolistic or too vital to society to allow for the introduction of a profit motive should be 100% government owned and operated. Transport networks, energy infrastructure/distribution, water, gas, telecommunications infrastructure, welfare systems, prisons, postal networks, are the main ones I can think of at the moment.

I don't think profit should have anything to do with it. There will be things that the market can't/wont supply because it's not profitable, but there are also things that are profitable that are too important to let profit motives compromise. It's important to remember that governments can get benefits in ways that aren't reflected in profits due to the flow on effects that it can have on society.



I'm pretty sure this is basically what happens now. It doesn't work. All it means is that the government has to pay the private companies profits AND for someone to make sure the private firms are operating to the required standards. Of course the 2nd bit very rarely happens so the private interests just end up screwing the public out of money for a service that is run worse than if the government was running it. See Job service advisors and the privatisation of electricity providers for recent examples.

If it's profitable for business to run then it'd still be cheaper for the government to do it itself.

The reason the second part rarely happens is because the government department who oversee's it is generally *%$#.
For the same reason the government department manage to make a hash of running the stuff that private businesses can do efficiently.
Left to its own devices you end up with huge government departments which don't achieve much.

Privatisation of electricity LOL at that example.
Just last weekend someone was telling me how back in the day they would run 12 hour shifts and if someone didn't turn up they'd be on for 36 with extra time. They employed a huge amount of people more than what they needed. The whole thing was a joke.
Why do you consider government owned power was better.

What we don't have is investment into the future. But that was just one aspect of an incredibly shitty operation.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No
We owe it to ourselves who stuck together as a group and demanded this stuff
Unions are only there to speak for members.....until you get high up and then they're as crooked as most politicians

At the base level I'm all for it
Have been for years
But as usual as you get higher up the chain it's all crooks and bullcrap

Yes the safety/working conditions/etc has been a good thing.
BUT
The blackmail for wages is a bad thing.
Dock workers are not harder working than any other workers. They simply blackmailed for more money.
So we have a society where those in a position to block a particular service get more money than others.
I'd put the construction industry in a similar category.