• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mondy

Banned
http://delimiter.com.au/2014/03/19/great-nbn-sell-already-begun/

NBN Co, we hardly knew ye. Make no mistake: Tony Abbott’s new Coalition Government does not want to own a national broadband monopoly. The process of selling NBN Co to the private sector has already begun, and will be accelerated over the next several years.

There was a lovely moment at an event held by the National Broadband Network in Sydney several weeks ago which perfectly encapsulated the imminent future of the company.

The occasion was a type of event which NBN Co hadn’t held before, and which government business enterprises are not accustomed to holding: A financial results briefing session. Such events are typically held by public companies such as Telstra, Optus and iiNet at least every six months and often more frequently. A largish conference room in a ritzy Sydney hotel is booked, financial analysts and journalists are invited, coffee and danishes are served and executives drone on about EBITDA and talk about growth before being peppered with questions about how margins will be improved.

NBN Co hasn’t held such events in the past because it hasn’t needed to. It only has one shareholder — the Federal Government — and it has no requirement to disclose its detailed financial information to the public through briefings.

Then too, NBN Co’s financial performance has never been the key benchmark of its success. The only reason the company exists — in the eyes of the previous Labor administration and in the eyes of the public — is to deploy faster broadband around Australia. Its quarterly financial results are not especially relevant to that operational task, as they will necessarily be weighed down by the startup costs of the next decade of infrastructure investment. As such, little insight can be gained by analysing them.

Consequently, at NBN Co’s first financial results briefing at the Westin in Sydney, there was an aura of puzzlement around the room; an unspoken doubt about the event’s fundamental purpose. Analysts from respected firms such as Merrill Lynch and Macquarie listened to the same financial rhetoric from NBN Co’s finance chief Robin Payne as they would hear from other telco CFOs, and politely asked the same analytical questions about return on investment and market share, but with an aura of uncertainty as to whether the answers actually meant anything.

At the end of the briefing, its quizzical nature was put into words by one wag, who asked NBN Co executive chairman that his only question was: “When’s the float?” — referring to a public listing of NBN Co’s shares on the Australian Stock Exchange. The nervous laughter which greeted the question revealed many in the audience had been thinking precisely the same thing.

The truth is that NBN Co will not go public any time soon. As was starkly evident during its first financial briefing session, the company’s metrics currently mean little, bedevilled as the company is by a turgid political environment and stung on all sides by the slings and arrows of failed contractual relationships. It’s not quite clear just how much of a traditional “company” NBN Co is at the moment. Often its incessant internal bureaucracy and its necessity of swaying in the political wind makes it seem more like a government department, while its risky rollout approach sometimes reminds one that the four-year-old company is fundamentally still a startup.

Most of all, anyone seeking to invest in NBN Co must be conscious that the company’s ultimate fate can, and will, be changed every three years as a new government comes to power. And the market knows that anything too afflicted by the political sphere represents the ultimate in risky investments — more treacherous than the most hyped-up hedge fund.

However, that doesn’t mean that the Coalition won’t try to sell off chunks of NBN Co to the private sector as soon as possible.

In the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, Malcolm Maiden baldly lays out NBN Co’s future path of privatisation. The veteran commentator’s article is completely unattributed, unsourced and will be labelled ‘speculation’. But reading between the lines, it is easy to see that the piece is likely sourced directly from an off-the-record interview with incoming NBN Co chief executive Bill Morrow, as it contains details which only those close to Morrow would know.

To a finance-focused business analyst, Maiden’s projected path for NBN Co — in which the company’s satellite and wireless networks will be quickly sold off, its greenfields rollout capabilities handed back to the private sector, its staff headcount pared back and Telstra contracted to conduct a pilot Fibre to the Node rollout of some 200 nodes — will not be controversial at all, representing legitimate mechanisms of cutting costs and making the company’s business more efficient.

But to those of us who have other concerns in Australia’s telecommunications sector — such as the public interest or technical worries — these measures are nothing short of disturbing.

NBN Co was set up by the previous Labor administration as a wholesale-only national telco monopolist for one very simple reason: The need to remove the inherent and very damaging conflict of interest that resulted when previous governments failed to split the wholesale and retail operations of Australia’s national incumbent telco Telstra.

The only obvious candidates to buy NBN Co’s satellites and wireless networks are existing telcos like Telstra and Optus, which make most of their money from their retail businesses. They will not be incentivised to allow rivals such as iiNet and TPG equitable terms to use the same infrastructure.

Then too, although it is demonstrably necessary to get Telstra more involved in the NBN rollout from a construction point of view due to the failure of NBN Co’s existing model, warning alerts should be raised over any attempt by Telstra to convert its participation in early trials of FTTN deployments on its copper network into ownership or operation of that infrastructure down the track. Telstra must not be allowed to remain a vertically integrated incumbent telco in the next generation of fixed-line networks in Australia.

The idea of handing greenfields rollouts back to the private sector is also a dangerous one. The previous Labor Government handed responsibility for broadband rollouts in greenfields estates to NBN Co several years ago for the precise reason that the private sector was proving itself unable to handle the situation. Reversing that move just a couple of years down the track would cause chaos and, more to the point, may not actually work.

Nobody should be surprised that the Abbott administration doesn’t want to own NBN Co; I almost feel as though I will throw up if I hear Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull trot out his analogy one more time about a traveller lost in Ireland on the way to Dublin as his reasoning for not having cancelled the whole shebang already.

Neither should we be surprised that the Government has already worked closely with Morrow on an exit strategy for large portions of the NBN; or that NBN Co’s finances are clearly being prepared for privatisation, or even that the public is being softly prepared for all this through background briefings with supportive Fairfax journalists. I am sure the next step will involve a more explicit explanation of the plan in The Australian newspaper.

However, we should be concerned.

Not only is the partial or full privatisation of NBN Co right now a bad idea, due both to competition issues as well as the company’s inherent immaturity, but the public doesn’t want it.

A survey taken just two months ago by Essential Media (was this a coincidence?) concluded that a total of 58 percent of Australians oppose privatising the National Broadband Network Company, around the same level as those opposing government-owned media groups the ABC and SBS.

These results weren’t a surprise — Australians have already been burnt by the privatisation of Telstra and the stagnation caused by its vertically integrated hold over the national telecommunications industry. Right now, Australians just want better broadband and they want it sooner. Most people probably view NBN Co like they view other trusted government organisations such as Australia Post, the ABC and SBS: As an essential public body which provides universal services that the private sector won’t.

But, of course it’s also true that the Abbott Government would love to offload the ABC and SBS to the private sector. The privatisation of Australia Post, along with others such as Medibank Private, is already being publicly canvassed, and Treasurer Joe Hockey has even reportedly made some Federal funding of State Governments contingent on privatisation there too.

We shouldn’t be surprised by the first hints of government plans to privatise NBN Co. It’s not the right thing to do, and now’s not the right time to do it. But it’s coming regardless.

The Abbott Government has gotten a lot right in some industries during its first few months in power, refusing to continue to subsidise unsustainable sectors such as car manufacturing and food processing. But you can’t take the same ideological approach to every market and expect the same results. Australia’s telecommunications sector needs a very ‘hands-on’ approach from the Federal Government right now — because the ‘hands-off’ approach has failed continuously for the past decade.

Well why the fuck not, The coalition got away with it so brazenly when they sold Telstra and the Australian public remains disgracefully apathetic to how screwed they were by that act ever since. As if anyone is going to start caring now.

I wonder if the Coalitions biggest dogs have a belly laugh in private every now and then over how much the voting public let them get away with.
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Man I so want to be there when they build a giant pyre of repealed legislation.

To answer everyone's hyperbole, I'm not convinced that being pro-deregulation is somehow anti-wage or anti-safety. Sure there are some parts of regulations deal with safety, and some deal with rates, but most regulations basically amount to regulating the number of paintings on a wall and the species of trees allowed in playgrounds.
I'm sure the Government is taking a careful and measured approach here although it is a little odd that three of the most prominent first round scrappings will be anti-charity, anti-environment and anti-consumer. You'd think they'd just start with the common sense duplication stuff but who am I to doubt the method to their madness?
 

Arksy

Member
On this topic, and I suppose slightly broader, I was thinking about culture wars the other day.

The level of engagement this government has taken in the culture wars has shocked even me. I mean I expect every government to do it, but the level of aggressiveness is basically unprecedented! I expect it sort of unconsciously or insidiously coming from the left, and a bit more blatantly or obnoxiously coming from the right.

The only reason I can think for this to be brought in so early in the term is that the left has controlled the narrative for so long they're simply trying to wrest control back. I'm not convinced by this argument myself really, because while there are a lot of things in Australia skewed to the left in terms of culture, other things skew very sharply to the right. I personally think government should fuck off and not try to influence culture but that'll never happen.

So I want to open this up to you guys. What do you guys think?
 

Mondy

Banned
On this topic, and I suppose slightly broader, I was thinking about culture wars the other day.

The level of engagement this government has taken in the culture wars has shocked even me. I mean I expect every government to do it, but the level of aggressiveness is basically unprecedented! I expect it sort of unconsciously or insidiously coming from the left, and a bit more blatantly or obnoxiously coming from the right.

The only reason I can think for this to be brought in so early in the term is that the left has controlled the narrative for so long they're simply trying to wrest control back. I'm not convinced by this argument myself really, because while there are a lot of things in Australia skewed to the left in terms of culture, other things skew very sharply to the right. I personally think government should fuck off and not try to influence culture but that'll never happen.

So I want to open this up to you guys. What do you guys think?

The only thing that is skewed far to the right is this notion that all foreigners come to Australia just to jump into the nearest Centrelink queue and you well know it. The rest can easily fall into the realm of the centre or the left. Australia is one of the more anti corporate western countries in the world for one thing and for good fucking reason. All of our biggest aussie corporations happen to be massive cunts who, surprise surprise, are buddy buddies with the Coalition.
 
The only thing that is skewed far to the right is this notion that all foreigners come to Australia just to jump into the nearest Centrelink queue and you well know it. The rest can easily fall into the realm of the centre or the left. Australia is one of the more anti corporate western countries in the world for one thing and for good fucking reason. All of our biggest aussie corporations happen to be massive cunts who, surprise surprise, are buddy buddies with the Coalition.

Hey now. Be fair, last I checked it was the Hawk Labor government who basically put Murdoch in the position he's in now.

And Arksy is right in many ways, Australia is right in practice for many areas that both political parties don't talk about and therefore maintain a pretty conservative status quo (gay marriage, abortion , bending over backwards anytime the US wants something, paranoid spying/security apparatus that most not in anyway be reigned in, something that dangerously approaches worship of the military, and a horribly confused attitude towards law enforcement (when its someone other than you doing something bad: Crackdown, when its you: Unjust etc). Our environmental stance is pretty close to center right as well on balance, people are to concerned about the money from mining and fracking to really take a strong environment stance. Whether or not these positions accurately reflect what would happen if the matters were put to a referendum is another matter altogether but even if they don't support, Australians in a vast majority at least tolerate it .
 

Dryk

Member
They really don't understand or care about how badly Telstra was handling the network do they...

and a horribly confused attitude towards law enforcement (when its someone other than you doing something bad: Crackdown, when its you: Unjust etc).
This one really annoys me. Speed cameras = bad because I should be able to speed whenever I want.
 

Arksy

Member
They really don't understand or care about how badly Telstra was handling the network do they...


This one really annoys me. Speed cameras = bad because I should be able to speed whenever I want.

When it's a speed camera at a busy and dangerous crossing where lots of accidents happen no one really gives two fucking hoots.

When it's a speed camera on a road with no intersection, nothing on either side to really hit, and at the bottom of a hill, people get annoyed. Read: Bakewell bridge underpass speed cameras.

451290-bakewell-bridge.jpg
 
Some scholarly articles on the efficacy of speed cameras in reducing fatalities/accidents would be interesting. I mean I could go find some, but effort...
 
When it's a speed camera at a busy and dangerous crossing where lots of accidents happen no one really gives two fucking hoots.

When it's a speed camera on a road with no intersection, nothing on either side to really hit, and at the bottom of a hill, people get annoyed. Read: Bakewell bridge underpass speed cameras.

In my experience those sorts of cameras are really in the minority. People complain about getting booked for speeding no matter where it is. Also whilst i understand it's natural to speed up on a downhill i do wonder what makes people think it's somehow safer to speed there than elsewhere. If it's not safe to speed normally the fact that you're driving down a hill doesn't sound make it safer.
 

markot

Banned
Driving within the speed limit is a condition of being on the roads. There should be billions of speed cameras if that is what it takes for people to follow the rules and be safe drivers. Driving is a privilege not a right.

But within 50 years we will all have self driving cars so the point is moot!
 

Danoss

Member
Some scholarly articles on the efficacy of speed cameras in reducing fatalities/accidents would be interesting. I mean I could go find some, but effort...

I'm trying to find an article I read citing problems caused by red light cameras: namely increased rear-end accidents. They're helpful in places where T-bone accidents are an issue, but are a nuisance elsewhere.

This problem and others were mostly due to contracts with states/cities in the US where the cost and placement of camera installation is covered by companies in exchange for a percentage of revenue raised by fines. Surprising to no one here I'm sure, the cameras installed were found not to cover any actual troublesome intersections—or the correct part of such an intersection—instead focusing on places of common offenses which rarely (if ever) result in collision.

A number of states/cities are having many cameras removed after discovering how ineffectual they have been in solving the problems they were intended to solve. Redflex, an Australian company has been at the heart of many of these too.

I'm not sure how things are done here beyond the placement and track record of particular locations, but it would be interesting to know.
 

Dryk

Member
There is going to be a huge backlash when something like this is first coming in (and probably for some time after).
It's so dumb seeing as the technology already has comparable failure rates if not better. But no, we need to stay with squishy drivers because even though they crash more often they're not COLD UNFEELING ROBOTS.
 

Arksy

Member
I'm trying to find an article I read citing problems caused by red light cameras: namely increased rear-end accidents. They're helpful in places where T-bone accidents are an issue, but are a nuisance elsewhere.

This problem and others were mostly due to contracts with states/cities in the US where the cost and placement of camera installation is covered by companies in exchange for a percentage of revenue raised by fines. Surprising to no one here I'm sure, the cameras installed were found not to cover any actual troublesome intersections—or the correct part of such an intersection—instead focusing on places of common offenses which rarely (if ever) result in collision.

A number of states/cities are having many cameras removed after discovering how ineffectual they have been in solving the problems they were intended to solve. Redflex, an Australian company has been at the heart of many of these too.

I'm not sure how things are done here beyond the placement and track record of particular locations, but it would be interesting to know.

That's interesting. I remember seeing an almost complete lack of speed cameras in most US cities. There were a few around DC where you know, there aren't any elections, but most of California, Texas or Florida were completely bereft of any speed cameras. Red light cameras were fairly rife though.
 

Jintor

Member
lol turnbull

"I... I don't understand this. how come you couldn't get the exact house you wanted that fulfilled all your criteria? why didn't you just throw money at the problem till it went away?"

ffs
 

bomma_man

Member
if crime was so vital to you why didn't you buy a house where there was no crime?

if views was so vital to you why did you buy a house where there were no views available?

if transport was so vital to you why did you buy a house where there was no transport available?

if education was so vital to you why did you buy a house where there were no good schools?

if healthy food was so vital to you why did you buy a house in a food desert?

it was so simple all along
 

Shaneus

Member
Came in here to post about that... what a clueless idiot. Why do anything if people should just move somewhere else instead? Fuck's sake.

Pretty sure that sums up the current Government's philosophy on everything. Rather than deal with X problem, shift the blame. It's the "boat people's" problem, let's just stop them coming here. It's your problem you didn't move to the right area for broadband access. It's that woman's problem for wearing those types of clothes when she was sexually assaulted.
 

Lafiel

と呼ぶがよい
lol turnbull

"I... I don't understand this. how come you couldn't get the exact house you wanted that fulfilled all your criteria? why didn't you just throw money at the problem till it went away?"

ffs

Hey that's where I live!

And the internet connectively here is still way better than what I lived in previously so eh.
 
lol turnbull

"I... I don't understand this. how come you couldn't get the exact house you wanted that fulfilled all your criteria? why didn't you just throw money at the problem till it went away?"

ffs

So much wrong on that page. Firstly just wow at that question. Not everyone can afford to just buy where ever they want and sometimes sacrifices have to be made. If anything her example should show exactly what is wrong with their NBN plan.

His follow-up tweets come off as pretty embarrassing really. The way he challenged her seemed pretty unprofessional and not something you would expect to read from a politician (it also required him to ignore everything else she had written).

In general i feel like there is something not quite right when reading twitters like that from a politician. Reading him say stuff like cd to represent could and in general just dumbing down everything he says. It just seems like a recipe for disaster.

Is that last point actually accurate? I thought the new NBN plan was actually going to cost even more and take longer to fully complete. Not that it matters because getting something done cheaper and quicker doesn't mean shit when it doesn't actually achieve what it set out to do.

It's so dumb seeing as the technology already has comparable failure rates if not better. But no, we need to stay with squishy drivers because even though they crash more often they're not COLD UNFEELING ROBOTS.

That's a big part of it and convincing people otherwise won't be easy. That plus a lot of people just like driving. It's kinda off topic but i don't think it will be easy to make this widespread.
 

Shaneus

Member
So much wrong on that page. Firstly just wow at that question. Not everyone can afford to just buy where ever they want and sometimes sacrifices have to be made. If anything her example should show exactly what is wrong with their NBN plan.

His follow-up tweets come off as pretty embarrassing really. The way he challenged her seemed pretty unprofessional and not something you would expect to read from a politician (it also required him to ignore everything else she had written).

In general i feel like there is something not quite right when reading twitters like that from a politician. Reading him say stuff like cd to represent could and in general just dumbing down everything he says. It just seems like a recipe for disaster.
That's why I did a double-take on whether it was an official account or not. His responses and language are something that could only come of a parody.
 

Tommy DJ

Member
Gee, someone who lived in Vaucluse doesn't know what its like not having unlimited money? What a surprise!

Is that last point actually accurate? I thought the new NBN plan was actually going to cost even more and take longer to fully complete. Not that it matters because getting something done cheaper and quicker doesn't mean shit when it doesn't actually achieve what it set out to do.

liberal_party_talking_points.txt. Its actually a really milquetoast answer because he's just parroting the party line and not doing anything else. I suppose that's exactly why a lot of politicians and celebrities love Twitter because the word limit means you don't have to articulate anything and the nature of social media means you've got a ton of sycophants to make you feel good.
 

Dryk

Member
I really hate how badly a hung parliament turns people against democracy. I've seen so many calls to scrap preferential voting, scrap electorates or scrap independents.
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
I really hate how badly a hung parliament turns people against democracy. I've seen so many calls to scrap preferential voting, scrap electorates or scrap independents.
TBF almost every election result does that.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-21/cassidy-abbott-has-questions-to-answer-about-sinodinos/5334672
Clive Palmer has now put a price on his support for the repeal of the mining tax; a very small price in monetary terms, but one that will annoy and embarrass the Prime Minister just the same.

It had always been assumed that Palmer's bloc of three votes in the Senate would negate the combined Labor and Greens vote and allow the repeal of both the carbon and mining taxes with no strings attached.

But now Palmer in an interview with Fran Kelly on Radio National has put an awkward proposition to the Government.

He insists it has to backdown on the decision to end the bonus welfare payments to the children of war veterans injured or killed overseas. The payments go to 1240 recipients and cost in total just $260,000 a year. They are essentially education allowances to cover unforseen expenses.

But Tony Abbott has insisted that because the payments were to be paid for by the mining tax, and the mining tax didn't raise any revenue, then they have to go. It's the principle.

Honestly didn't expect them to go near veterans or their families in any way, but I guess if you're trying to convince people that the federal government is a currency user everything's fair game.
 

bomma_man

Member
I think Clive could provide us with a fair bit of entertainment in the next few years. For a billionaire mining magnate his policies are actually fairly eccentric.
 
Hooray, repeal day!

Some of the country's lowest-paid workers could lose almost a quarter of their weekly wages under changes quietly introduced by the Abbott government.

Thousands of workers will be hit by the changes, which will strip between $172 and $225 a week from the pockets of full-time contract cleaners who work in government buildings.

The changes are among the 9500 regulations to go under Prime Minister Tony Abbott's red tape ''repeal day'' on Wednesday.

Buried in more than 50,000 pages of regulations and acts of parliaments to be scrapped is the revelation the government will abolish the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines for cleaners employed on government contracts from July 1.
Advertisement

The regulations are a form of collective bargaining introduced by Labor that lift the wages of workers hired by businesses that win government cleaning contracts, by between $4.53 and $5.93 an hour above the minimum wage. This brings their weekly wage from $664 to $836 for a 38-hour week for level 1, and from $724 to $950 a week for level 3 workers.

United Voice, the union representing cleaners, would not comment on the changes before consulting its members. It is understood the union was not aware of the changes and is trying to negotiate with contractors and the government in an attempt to mitigate the effects on its members.

Labor introduced the Cleaning Services Guidelines in 2011 to tackle the exploitation of vulnerable workers in the contract cleaning industry. A 2010 Fair Work Ombudsman audit of cleaning contractors found that 40 per cent of audited businesses did not comply with workplace laws. It recovered almost $500,000 for 934 underpaid workers.

But with those changes being scrapped, cleaners working on government jobs will again be paid at the award rate.

The Department of Employment says the changes will remove the different rates of pay for workers employed in private and government work.

''Cleaning services providers tendering for government work from July 1, 2014, will still be required to comply with all relevant workplace laws and the modern awards set by the Fair Work Commission,'' it said.

But Opposition Leader Bill Shorten dubbed the change a ''stinker''.

''Tony Abbott's version of red tape reduction is to cut the pay of some of Australia's lowest paid workers,'' Mr Shorten said. ''I don't understand why the Prime Minister is happy to pocket a pay rise every year but is forcing the person cleaning his office to take a pay cut.''

A spokesman for Employment Minister Eric Abetz said: ''There are very strong legal protections and safeguards for workers in the industry contained in the Fair Work Act 2009 and the modern awards system.

''The Fair Work Ombudsman continues to be the government regulator that ensures workers are receiving their correct legal entitlements.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ig-pay-cuts-20140322-35a6g.html#ixzz2wkhfAuSn
 

Dryk

Member
Rather good outcome for Bob Such seeing as his electorate would crucify him for siding with Labor and he opposed siding with the Liberals before the election because they tried to muscle him out of his seat.

PNG + Australia Join Forces to Shut Down Human Rights Inquiry on Manus

Well, at least we're working with our neighbours again! That's got to count for something!
How terribly convenient for the government that lawyers need to be able to practice law in PNG and Australia in order to conduct the inquiry.
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Sure enough Stephen Marshall is salty.
Yes, you won the popular vote by 92k, but it's seats that win elections.
The quote I heard from him was that they received 92 thousand more first preference votes than Labor. The Myspace angle of polling numbers.
 

Dryk

Member
The quote I heard from him was that they received 92 thousand more first preference votes than Labor. The Myspace angle of polling numbers.
Lots of people are calling for a no electorate, no preference voting system after this. These people don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
 
Lots of people are calling for a no electorate, no preference voting system after this. These people don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

How on earth would that work ? I guess you'd just have to take the top n candidates with the most votes. Which means that the inevitable overflow off the first few Labor/Coalition candidates would then result in about a quarter of the house being filled with anyone who can get listed and get about 20 people to vote for them. Okay, while this is a terrible system the opportunities for hilarity are impressive.
 

bomma_man

Member
The mental gymnastics people go through to justify ripping up democratic processes in a way that would 'conveniently' advantage their preferred party are so transparent. Piers Akerman did a piece in The Mercury before the election (probably the only article by him that I've managed to get to the end to) admonishing the Hare-Clarke system. His argument essentially amounted to "get rid of it because it makes it harder for the Liberals to get in".
 

Dryk

Member
SO....first past the post?
First past the post still has electorates. Also I know that it's called that but they're not calling for first past the post they're just calling "Electorates are dumb, scrap them" or "Preferences are dumb, scrap them" as loudly as they can without any hint that they understand why those protections are in place.

People are so hateful towards anything outside the two-party bubble
 
1. Hope more things like that come to light and spread through the national consciousness
but

2. The fact NZ is the worst, and 1%. That's brilliant in a maybe not brilliant way but I don't care it seems amusing to me.
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Tonight on Q&A:
Tony Jones: "The report states that no Australian Government official has interviewed the asylum seekers making these claims. Is this correct?"

Kelly O'Dywer: "If I made a wild and unsubstantiated claim about you Tony, would you have to be interviewed to disprove it?"

*applause*

WTF. No words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom