Liberal Party's Broadband Policy Is A Whole Heap Of Nothing

Shadow Communications Minister Tony Smith today announced the Liberals broadband policy. Or rather spent almost an hour telling the media that should they be elected, the Libs won't actually be doing anything to provide a national broadband infrastructure to take the country future.

The Liberals broadband policy consists of spending $6.315 billion over seven years, with $750 million earmarked for grants to incentivise the private sector to jump on board. Rather than promise a high bandwidth, high speed network, their policy promises a base speed of 12Mbps for 97 per cent of the country, with some people potentially getting speeds up to 100Mbps.

The announcement itself was a bit shy on details. They promised they would update the backhaul with fibre in areas that needed it and expand satellite coverage for rural areas, but for the most part they spent most of their time lambasting Labor for promising to spend $43 billion of taxpayers money on a "white elephant".

We're waiting for the policy to be uploaded to the Liberals' policy website - it's kind of telling that an hour after the announcement began, the broadband policy still hasn't been shared online. Once we've got our hands on the actual policy document, we'll offer a more thorough analysis. But from the announcement this morning, the Liberals have offered those of us hoping for faster broadband absolutely nothing.

UPDATE: The policy is now online. You can download the PDF yourself here. Reading through it, the entire policy seems to be as empty of technical detail as the press conference. Essentially the Liberals are rehashing their old OPEL broadband plan to offer a basic 12Mbps everywhere and if you happen to live in an area that the telco's feel will make them money, you might get speeds up to 100Mbps.


    Is it just me, or is he one exclusive brethren looking mofo?

      ha, I was trying to place him all through the debate but yes thats it!

    Well they had me at no filter and lost me at no broadband improvements. i have 20mbps now...

    lucky the Greens are against the filter and it looks like they will hold the balance in the senate so it shouldn't get up.

    I have no particular issue with this - fast braodband is great, but at what cost? I have 20mb/s now but given a choice of paying massively more for 100mb/s I'm perfectly happy to stick with what I have. Thing is, even if the upfront cost is "only" $200 a month for 100mb/s - less for less speed, I'd still end up paying a fortune for it through my taxes. If I live in the back of nowhere, where I cannot get braodband speeds now, I'll still be using satelites for broadband after the introduction of the NBN - and paying more through taxes.

      In response to your comments, I'm sorry you have absolutely no idea. Just because you have internet access now for 20mb/s and you're happy with it, doesn't mean that you don't need 100mb/s. I remember when I had a dial-up modem and i thought THAT was fast back then. So the backward thinking of that comment just doesn't make sense. In terms of $200/month, that's also incorrect. $200/month would be close to having unlimited broadband, phone access as well as cable television (triple play) all through the same connection with the NBN. So when you think about just that opportunity of integration and speed it's just mind boggling. Not only that but this is a forward thinking technology. Look at the advent of the smartphone which no one really thought would take off until we got an upgraded mobile network. The opportunities that will become available with the NBN in terms of economic, social, environmental, educational and many others are yet to be even dreamt up yet!

      As for you paying more in your taxes... well the Labor government has actually cut personal income taxes and has no intention of raising them. They'll also be looking at cutting company tax as well. The NBN is also a private/public partnership so it won't be all funded by your taxes. As well as that it is being funded by the future fund and unlike other government agencies that just give out money, the NBN will MAKE money over time and if kept in the public purse for long enough will eventually turn a profit.

      So, do a little research before you blurt out nonsense.

        People like you are the problem. Materialism is all you shout, I want more, I want faster, I am Gluttony! Have you ever heard of the cowboy economy? Oh of course you haven't, you were too busy sucking download loads of torrents of videos and games you will never watch and play.

        Honestly, 12mbps is Enough as a Minimum for the normal population.

        @GDG: yeah, like a somewhat minor member of the tech community once said "no one will ever need more than 640k of ram."

        you clearly lack imagination. thinking that the internet is only, and will only ever be used for pirating media...

        @GDG It’s got very little to do with the speeds we achieve at home or how much we pay for broadband!!! The NBN rather, has positive implications for business productivity, E-health, transactional banking, telecommunication, the transfer of funds, lower emissions, better data collection and greater speeds for almost all industries. These great benefits simply would not be achievable (or very unlikely) under the coalitions proposed plan as it stands.

        Who are you GDG? Where did pirating come into my argument at all? Did you even read my reply? I noted that the true potential of higher speed are yet to be imagined. Pirating media has actually already been imagined so your stupid and ill-considered remarks aren't relevant at all. How about some things to consider...
        1. Family who live far away from each other who can share information faster, better and easier over an NBN.
        2. The ability for smaller businesses to grow because faster internet makes it affordable to link different sites together instead of it just being for ICT related and large businesses who can afford the exborbitant SHDSL and copper ethernet solutions.
        3. The ability for country businesses to link to city centres so that business centres can diversify.
        4. The unlimited amount of digital information available to rural doctors, dentists, pharmacists and other allied health professionals (of which I am one)
        5. The fact that all schools will now be able to connect to the NBN, especially more remote schools in rural centres with the ability to share and create information otherwise unknown to them.

        The list goes on mate so go get a life and think outside your ridiculously small box.

        Firstly Dave, Cut the personal attacks out. They just make it look like your covering for a lack of insight into the subject (of which it appears you do have).

        Secondly the tax cuts you mentioned "labor" provided were actually first budgeted by the Liberals when Costello was treasurer. The only thing labor did was not STOP the tax cut from happening (suicidal politics if they had tried). So far labor has NOT delivered a single tax cut of their own making. Further more, claiming that just because taxes aren't going up doesn't mean we're not paying more. As inflation pushes our wages up (earning $40,000 instead of $35,000)- so too does our tax (especially with that example as in includes jumping up a tax bracket).

        Furthermore the NBN is a government owned enterprise which is wholely funded by the government. Oh and guess what, aside from the funding currently provided to the NBN all the rest of the $43 billion dollars isn't even CONTAINED in the budget papers. So all this talk of Labor that will be back to surplus in 2013 is a blatant LIE (or at the very least a massive bending of the truth). You see, either they intend to actually build the NBN, and we be approx $40 billion dollars in the red (more than we are now) OR they don't intend to build it, in which case their budget papers are correct. If you don't believe me refer to the Budget report itself:

        If you look at Box 3 where it details the 20 largest government projects you'll notice the smallest is a "mere" $4 billion dollars and yet, no mention of the NBN. To be "fair" to labor, they acknowledge (as quietly as possible) that it's not in the budget because it's an "Asset". If you think that's fair, just ask your bank if they'd mind ignoring your $100K's of debt simply because you have a house as an "asset". The fact is you still had to pay for it and the government will to...

        Your claim that the NBN will make money is true. The real question is will it make a PROFIT or a LOSS though??? There's no point the NBN bringing in $1 billion dollars a year to service a $43 billion dollar debt. A modest interest rate of 5% would mean $2.15billion dollars of INTEREST each and EVERY year once the NBN is completed. Unfortunately i can't say if the NBN will make a profit or not (just as you can't) because the government hasn't commissioned a Cost-Benefit Analysis. Until one is done, it's guess work, but you'd think if the government thought this NBN was going to be so profitable, they'd have commissioned one to shut up all the critics up?? Especially seeing as they've had several Consultancy firms already do work for the NBN to which a Cost-Benefit Analysis could've been added for a small sum.

        Now don't get me wrong, many other points raised for the NBN are indeed valid. Such as connecting regional centres and making them more competitive and as well serviced as the major Metro areas. However, that said OPEL was designed to also do that, so it's not something ONLY an NBN can do. Also in regards to Allied Health. Hospitals are connected via fibre already, so the NBN will not affect them. As for non-Hospital based servers, wireless internet is vastly more important than a wired solution. Before everyone starts crying foul consider this. Already via Wireless i am able to send High Quality diagnostic images (yes i'm practising in the field of Medical Imaging) over the internet. Now no matter how fast or slow my current home internet connection is (a lousy 1.5mbps for those who MUST know...) wireless is the ONLY option for my business.

        Also i'd like to point out that i've read elsewhere that the average home internet connection is 4mbps, so this Coalition policy DOES improve current broadband speeds. Sure not for those currently on something better, but for the base population (which is what a lot of the major benefits of the NBN are aimed at- eg. "Oh we need this for small business"... well what small business would need much more than 12mbps- with further enhancements in the future??? Especially when that same small business is currently on 64kbps...

        There are many other points that can be said for or against the NBN, but here's something to consider. For an Interest cost of $2.15 billion a year (or more- especially if there's a cost blowout...) what other things could we build? Or how much better services could the government provide to Australians??

        One such example is that for $43 billion approx 1/3 to 1/2 of all Australian household could be supplied with a FREE solar system that would COMPLETELY power their household... Remembering that household supplies are less effecient than solar powerplants, and that cost is rapidly dropping over the years, the government could pay for a FREE solar system on every household over the next decade. By 2020, australia would be CO2 Neutral for household emissions. This doesn't take into account the cost associated with compensation for current powerplant owners etc. But it proves that if governments actually bother looking longer term, they could avoid building a SINGLE new powerplant with just a small percentage of that $43 billion. The rest could go towards more doctors and nurses or more police on our streets.... the possibilities are endless.

        Sure if the NBN is a COST effective way of providing totally awesome internet... then GREAT! If it's not, (which seems more likely) than it is the overblown white elephant that the Coalition claims it is and a subsidy system which they've proposed would provide a majority of the benefits (especially the major ones) at a fraction of the cost... allowing for far more services/infrastructure/tax cuts in the future...

        I do hope people will have bothered reading my wall of text and then give themselves time to consider the opinions i have raised, before automatically jumping into a defensive mode.

        I'm sorry but spending 43 billion to ensure that my grandma and grandpa have 10mb/s downloads is just ludicrous. It's greed that ignites you people, greed and lack of understanding/caring for the rest of the world.

        A 1.2mb/s download is plentiful. Look at all the other countries right now in Asia suffering from floods and land slides and all you want is more internet speed. Some of that money could go to helping people like that actually sleep in a bed at night.

        Good work Gluttony, Good work.


      While 20Mb/s is good for you, what about us poor sods who live in the middle of suburbia and can only get 1.5Mb/s DSL or less? I have Telstra cable 3 doors from me and they won't extend it! NBN is the way to go and the Libs have lost my vote because their plan essentially is keeping the status quo.

        We're assuming that the internet is going to be the only thing that we're using the NBN for!

        The NBN will provide next-generation high bandwidth connectivity. I don't think about the NBN has being fast internet. It's about having optical internconnects. Like a copper wire was once used solely for phones, it is now used for data, faxes, security systems. What fibre will be used for in the next 100 years can only be imagined.

        Maybe in this country, it'll be the death of the telephone.. perhaps all calls in the future will be HD video-enabled. Such a system could be leveraged in emergency situations, can you imagine a system where a '000' call puts you face to face with an ER doctor who can diagnose your issue on the spot, in your home? or schedule a priority for a paramedic response, or provide face-to-face advice and who can see what is going on in real-time in high definition?

        A scenario could be envisaged where 30 years down the track each house has a medical kit which a remote ER doctor could leverage to save someone's life without even being in the room. Perhaps this person is 2000km away..

        Perhaps similarly, we can use the NBN for security video, policing, etc. fire protection and preventative surveilance, and potentially could be used in ways not previously possible using copper or wireless low bandwidth technologies.

        I'm just providing scenarios where fast, rapid, low latency high bandwidth connections would not just provide a bigger pipe to download movies with. 12mbps might be enough for many people's internet connections, but we're assuming that the NBN is only for hooking computers up to. It may be, initially, just like the only thing once hooked up to the telegraphic copper network was phones..

        But here, it could be medical, television, voting, banking/loans, face-to-face contact.. anything. I don't understand why Labor hasn't made more of this. A simple 30 second commercial could do it.

      I'll bet GDG & Michael are the same 2 trolls, Cause it takes a lucky punt at finding this website, this topic and repeat exactly what each one said... lol

      Nevertheless, the money you pay now needs to go into infrastructure for the future, not already available speeds/connectivity..., the possibilities are unimaginable !

    The National Broadband Network is the only policy with any real vision for the future.

    They've done their homework and come to a conclusion that most Australians have no idea why high speed reliable affordable internet access will soon be a necessity (rather than a luxury).

    Leadership by grasscutting???

      Nodody can deny that the internet has become a major part of western civilization. Just because we think we don't need 100Mbps now doesn't mean we won't need it in the future. If we have the bandwidth, we'll find ways of using it and the number of ways will just keep growing.

      Furthermore I'm pretty sure we'll be able to get speeds much faster then 100Mbps with fiber without a complete overhaul of the system.

    lost my vote, I am not one you city dwellers on 20MB or even 10 MB or even 5MB, I am stuck on 384KB up, wow! and most people cant even get that. The current government is the only ones with any vision for the future, we need fibre to the home!

    This liberal plan is all bullcrap!

    I don't understand how offering grants constitutes a policy that is "a whole heap of nothing."

    I understand that it is not promising $40,000,000,000 to create a government owned monopoly over the private sector, which would supposedly guarantee that the NBN will be completed, and done effectively, but in the same token, you need to step back and ask yourself: how did the Labor Party's "Grocery Watch" website (yes... just a website) cost $20,000,000?

    Surely this gross inflation of costs in the industry you know quite well clearly demonstrates that the Labor Party has no idea how to fund and successfully operate IT projects.

    How can you expect that the Labor Party's $40bn NBN won't simply be scrapped when they realise it was such a waste, just as they did with the Grocery Watch?

      You want to know how Grocery Watch could cost $20m?

      Website design: $20,000 (I don't know, just plucked a figure from the air)
      Getting the data to feed into the website: $19,980,000...

      You get my drift?
      There's more to something like Grocery Watch than a teenage work experience kid with a copy of the MS Frontpage... (although you'd swear some government sites look a bit like that's how they were developed!)
      Assume you've got 10,000 grocery stores in the country. Assume it takes 1 hour to survey a 'standard trolley' worth of prices. Hire people at $20/hr to get that data. Say another hour per store to feed the data into your system. That's $400,000 every time you update the prices.
      And did they actually *spend* $20m on the site? Or was that the proposed operating budget over three years, or something like that?

    I can't believe a tech blog is supporting a monopoly ISP. NBN will be like Telstra.

    When the government is in trouble like they are now and needs to pay some money back, who will stop them from jacking our connection fees up?

    This Lib plan seems to be giving companies like iiNet the ability to buy into an open network. To setup 100mbps connections on an open network. No Telstra or NBN monopoly.

    I am voting for that.

    I am voting not to waste my money on running fibre to people who don't want it. My nanna certainly doesn't and I don't think my tax money should be wasted on that.

      Hate to be blunt dude, but the NBN aint designed for your nanna.
      Along with many others, she'll be gone long before the NBN is fully exploited. Some Australians just seem to fail to look into the future, and are stuck with the here and yesterday.
      The problem with the Lib plan is you're going to end up with segmented networks all over the country that don't all work at the same speed or have the same coverage. A little ISP in bumsville isn't going to be able to supply fibre to somewhere on the other side of the country, the NBN will.

      The NBN is going to be a wholesaler to other ISP's, not an ISP in its own right. What we have now is a monopoly from Telstra who own bot the wholesale arm and the retail arm.

      The NBN will become the wholesaler and force Telstra to become a reseller ISP like everyone else.

    Having a 100Mb cable to my house doesn't guarantee me that bandwidth. There are so many contingent factors. How much backhaul is run to my community, What size pipe does my ISP pay for and how many users do they run through it. Remember the 100Mbps are always UP TO statements.

    I listened to the press release live - and they were focusing on backhaul, that isn't all bad.

      very true.

    oh for the love of god... get real people!

    comment: i already have a horse that takes me from A to B, why would i need a car? he's reliable enough, can carry me wife, and eats practically anything i feed him! besides, if i want to visit or talk to long distant relatives i can take a hot air balloon!

    comment: why invest in fibre, when wireless is all the rage! well, i like cancer too, but in terms of national security, wired networks are safer and a whole lot prettier underground!

    comment: no more monopolies... ah, so you gonna rely on telstra and optus to provide the nation with this tech then? your tax wasted.. so i suppose you also chose to have your tax dollars diverted to the war in Afghanistan too eh?

    So broadband vote now swings back to Labor with reliance on the Libs/Greens to block the filter in the senate - sounds good to me.

    This is also remembering that we also have a monopoly wholesale network even today. Sure, other ISP's may have gear in some locations but as a whole, there's still alot of reliance on Telstra Wholesale gear (backhaul, line to customer, many many ADSL ports). So, yes, the NBN will again have a monopoly wholesale provider we should at least see one that is NOT anticompetitive, does NOT shaft it's wholesale customers (T's latest "below cost" plans anyone??) and does NOT impede people trying to move to other ISP's ADSL equipment.

    lets also remember the fact that faster broadband means a more competitive economy in the long run. Other nations are already ahead of us in that respect and as a small country we need all we can muster to remain competitive in the world economy. surely we all have enough insight to realise its not just about our domestic use but also our business utilisation of the NBN. we cant just depend on our mining to prop us up we need to expand our thinking and develop a diverse framework of business to stay relevant in the global economy. the NBN is our chance to do that. it may not seem like much right now but in years to come it will help us lead

    i know we all like to sigh and proclaim that the NBN is the only good future and it is fantastic, but what about the times when the experts were complaining about the infeasibility of it, or the fact the project has 0 transparency.

    I would love faster internet and Australia needs to work a helluva lot more on its infrastructure but come on people, the first people to get new cabling should be people who don't already have access to it, then it should be added to new areas to allow for more housing projects.

    I think people in suburbia, myself included and the people who live in the cities, should just sit tight on the speeds we have currently, and get the government to focus on improving the infrastructure where there is none.

      That's exactly why the NBN is being rolled out to Tasmania first. Their broadband has always sucked; with the NBN and some backhaul improvements, now it sucks a lot less.

      Shame the Tasmanians seem mostly uninterested in even the possibility of faster internet in their future. I guess most of those who really want/need faster net access have already moved to areas that have decent access already.

    fuck the liberals and fuck their 2-bit policies, The only thing the liberals can see in the NBN is the $35 billion price tag. This country needs it, maybe not for now but for the future and there is no time like the present to put in a fibre network and the longer you leave it the more expensive it will become.

      What technology has ever gotten more expensive over time?

        dude, costs go up for labour something like the snowy scheme from wiki;
        The Scheme was managed by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, and took 25 years to build, from 1949 to 1974,[8] at the cost (at that time) of AUD$820 million; a dollar value equivalent in 1999 and 2004 to AUD$6 billion.

        if they delay the NBN it will just cost more in the long run, also i read that NBN will be basicly be paying for it self in the long run.

        I was not talking about the technology i was talking about the metreials, labor, admin and general expenses of the NBN will go up the longer you leave it

    Let's face it, the lib policy means if you leave within 5km of a city center you are sitting pretty, everyone else will be waiting 20 years for an increase in speed as it will always be "not enconomically viable" for anyone to upgrade those areas.

    Here's some examples of new technologies we'll need those extra mb's for:
    Ultra High Definition streams (UHD is already starting to be looked at in Japan and other countries)

    Holographic video (it's working nowadays and will be affordable in the future, youtube search "telstra hologram meeting").

    Multiplayer games incorporating over 64 players.

    Good enough now is going to be embarasssing in the future.

      64 player gaming is hardly a reason for a government to spend $43B.

        says you! :)

        how about a 64 person business meeting? with video and audio?

        can you imagine the lack of traffic on the roads if everyone could work from home?

        how about 64 people being on a conference together rather than having to drive or fly around the world to be with each other, or 64 school kids doing a VR tour of a medical research centre on the other side of the planet! talk about no vision, go back to Dial it, it was good enough for you wasn't it ;-), or maybe carrier pigeon? Lets all go back to having a Tandy TRS 80, and horse and carts shall we?

        If we thought the same AS YOU are thinking, there would be no national highways, or snowy river scheme, where is the ROI studies on all those? many of these scheme have far reaching benefits that are not always to measure on paper.

    Anyone who thinks that we can spend 43 billion (plus interest and the usual government infrastructure cost blowouts) and not have higher taxes in one form or another should not be allowed to vote. I'm all for faster internet but the simple truth is all studies worldwide show that the installation of really fast broadband has only a minor benefit to business. Certainly not worth spending around $60B on.

      Hi Mike,

      Can you post links to some of these studies so I can make an informed decision.


      August 10, 2010 at 3:16 PM
      how about 64 people being on a conference together rather than having to drive or fly around the world to be with each other, or 64 school kids doing a VR tour of a medical research centre on the other side of the planet! talk about no vision, go back to Dial it, it was good enough for you wasn’t it ;-), or maybe carrier pigeon? Lets all go back to having a Tandy TRS 80, and horse and carts shall we?

      If we thought the same AS YOU are thinking, there would be no national highways, or snowy river scheme, where is the ROI studies on all those? many of these scheme have far reaching benefits that are not always to measure on paper.

      Mate, return on investment for a government project is measured differently to private investment because it is about more than money. The Snowy River scheme started in 1949 to employ the influx of returning servicemen and migrants post WW2. On top of that we got a great piece of infrastructure that is still relevant 50 years later.

      The NBN, whilst delivering faster internet will employ those poor migrant workers from places like Accenture and Cisco :) and the head of the NBN has given it a lifespan without reinvestment of 15 years.

      There still has not been a valid business plan for the NBN (this is in breach of government spending policy), so I fail to see why tax payers should be forced to pay for it. NBN is a $43B dollar way to buy young voters, anyone with rudimentary financial knowledge knows it's going to be a white elephant. We have neither the population density or the economy to make it financially worthwhile.

    When I lived in Japan I had 100Mb to my apartment*. For about AUD $25/month. Unlimited download/upload.

    In 2001.

    Just saying...

    * and that was really the speed I got: it was quicker to do a 10GB download from company HQ (in the US) from home using VPN than from the serviced office I worked in downtown.

    Those people against broadband just have no idea of the possibilties. They think it's just so we can download pirate movies faster.

    Fast broadband will touch over aspect of your everyday life in ways you can't imagine.

    Lets listen to the experts for once, and all of our experts say it's 43b well spent.

    I watched the announcement - what a disappointment. The Libs have really dropped the ball. I hate to admit it, but compared to this, the NBN really does make the ALP look like it is 'moving forward' as Julia Gillard says.

    Hey, let's have the NBN provided privately, like the mobile network is. Then we will be able to have the novelty of looking at a fibre running down the street somewhere, but not be able to connect because we are with a different company.

    Governments always go over budget, but private enterprise is only about profit. That means forgetting about the country people, or any other sector that is not profitable enough.

    Is it left-wing to ask for an equitable solution?

    The Libs have really screwed up here.

    Super High Speed Broadband is critical for us to compete on the World business stage. A vote for the libs is definitely not a vote forward.

    Fast internet is crutial to the future of any developed country.


    Are we selling ourselves short here? Someone made a stupid comment about wireless giving you cancer - but there is no evidence of that.

    With wireless getting cheaper and cheaper every day - australia would be stupid to not invest in services like 4g, WiMAX etc, and really invest in it properly. They are going to throw 3g modems to those in rural areas anyways.

    It would be quicker, simpler, easier to uprgade in the future and allow ALOT more flexibility and coverage. Its expensive to do, but why not do it properly the first time?

    Running cables is old technology, costly, time consuming, and like rurual people have said, it will discriminate against them.

    Fast internet is great, and we will need it - but lets be serious about it. If you want to plan for the future - PLAN FOR THE FUTURE.

      Suggest you do a bit more reading about the actual, real-world bandwidth available to wireless. It's a bit like the cable internet experience in the US. When they first launched it, people were getting 5-10Mbps. When adoption rates got really high in some areas, there were people who kept a second ISP account that they dialled in via 56k modem because it was faster in peak times... (cable being a shared resource in your neighbourhood, your speeds depend on how many of your neighbours are using it at any given time - much like wireless).
      It's all about contention ratios - how many customers per tower? If a tower can support 10 channels, each at 20Mbps, then at 4am you'll probably get a 20Mbps connection. 7pm, on the other hand, when there are 3,000 other customers logged on?
      Fibre-to-the-home doesn't have that problem. 100Mbps per customer, all the time. Once it's at the exchange, it's a backhaul problem, and fibre pairs can be driven well into the terabit range these days... (assuming a 10Tbps backhaul rate, that's 100,000 customers at 100Mbps supported by a single backhaul fibre pair).

      I have to scream this - WIRELESS IS NOT THE FUCKING ANSWER... Wi-fi is good for home networks because there are not very many connections for it to slow down but when you connect a whole city to wireless internet it will become slow and very laggy.

      I have spent two and a half horrible years with wireless. Moved house last month and back to ADSL - heaven!
      Will not go into the litany of problems and I used all the major service providers. Wireless will never be the answer. I also feel awful about not telling the next tenants there is no ADSL available.

    I think it is a bit shallow-minded to vote for a party JUST based on their IT policies. Several people have said this and it worries me.
    And no, I am not a tech hater. I have as much interest as technology as anyone commenting.

      I'm not voting for any one party on any one policy. And i don't think in reality, anyone will vote because of one policy. But, people are always swayed but policies. Whether it be this, or health, or education, or the economy,or the economy, or if you're really stupid it will be asylum seekers. But most people will take all of these into account. And if you think that the Liberals have a better policy outlook in any of these areas then you are obviously reading more bylines than you are actual hardline policy outlooks! (Not you in particular but just people in general!)

        Everything looks good when you spend 130 billion.

        Paying it back... not so pretty it means saying no to things.

    fulfilling abbotts plan is really polishing a turd - it might look shiny and new but in the end you have to realise its still just a piece a shit.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now