2 posts tagged “oz politics.”
It's undoubted logic that Labor would always have preferred, nay, pre-determined to follow it's own path on the information superhighway.
This path was confirmed yesterday with Stephen Conroy's announcement of the Conroy call costs Labor politically | The Australian">termination of OPEL's contract to provide internet connectivity to remote & regional Australia. It's difficult to understand, however, where the political difficulty comes into play, as proposed by Jennifer Hewett of the Oz. Look at the issue from purely political terms. Why would a Labor government want to adopt or even grudgingly accede to any arrangement put into place by it's political foes? Where's the political sense in that? Additionally, as many an industry pundit has already postulated, wireless connectivity was always doubtful on the terms of the OPEL contract. Hardwired, or hard-'fibred' in this case - infrastructure is always the preferred path. Tangible, repairable and above all else, more efficient, fibre optic to-the-node is always to be preferred over wireless, regardless of the power of the transmission signal.
The Labor plan provides more avenues for smaller providers to make supply niches for themselves in their local areas. The OPEL submission was never intended to be that flexible, with the joint venture retaining control all along the way. Additionally, it's still an unknown as to just how wireless would be propagated in order to meet the desired 90% coverage, which has been the convenient 'out' for Conroy's department. I know of a small provider in Stanthorpe which has been pushing for and experimenting with wireless broadband transmission services for more than two years now. Just over two years, and still their principle service area remains well within a 20 kilometre radius of Stanthorpe, despite astute repeater positioning. Even within that core area, pockets of null signal still eventuate.
Personally, I believe that even optic fibre-to-the-node won't be the cat's pyjamas, especially in remote and regional Australia. It's a hell of a long way between nodes in a lot of places. Wireless will still have a place in the grand scheme, as will satellite and common old copper wire ADSL2. Australia's copper wire infrastructure is old and far too much like topsy, having been built onto and renovated over many decades. The addition of fibre optics from secondary backbones to regional hubs, thence to neighbourhood nodes is only likely to add another layer of complexity to an already complex system. Will it be faster? Probably. Depending on where you are, how far from the hub your nearest node is, what connection the hub has to the backbone and the condition of your copper wire phone line from the node to your router. I'm willing to bet that Telstra - the ongoing owner of the copper wire network - still won't guarantee speeds in excess of 2400 baud.
Fibre to the node technology may be more expensive than wireless right now, but over time, will be the far better, and more economic model. Better for business, better for the provider industry and better in the main for the consumer. Australia is such a vast and vacant country that no such technology can hope to be all things to all people, but at least by laying out an infrastructure solution, the basis for further improvement in the future will be there. As for the political cost Jennifer Hewett thinks will arise? In many ways, damned if they do and damned if they don't on the OPEL contract. Common sense says do your own thing in politics. Why give your foe any opportunity to crow? Pride goeth before a fall, perhaps? In the grand scheme, is it really going to matter? Australia gets a better communications system. It'll cost more and take a little longer but we all recognise that one gets what one pays for. Better to pay the locals and have comeback, rather than pay a joint venture contractor and have to chase them after the fact.
Friday sittings of the House of Representatives aren't likely to be productive in the least, but they should prove to be entertaining.
Listening today, I was quite shocked at the behaviour of the opposition, which was anything but orderly or respectful of the Speaker. If anything, they were deliberately disruptive and adversarial. Between 9:15am and 9:30am it all happened.
Mr Ciobo, 9:15:42 AM, moved—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Moncrieff from moving—That “at 12 p.m. each and every Friday that this House sits, the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House and call on questions without notice for a period of one hour and thirty minutes”.
Closure of Member
Dr Kelly, 9:16:11 AM, moved—That the Member be no longer heard.
Question—put.
A division having been called for, in accordance with standing order 133 the division was deferred until the commencement of the next sitting.
Point of order, Mr Hockey, 9:17:11 AM, Point of order, Mr Hockey, 9:18:11 AM
Mr Hartsuyker, 9:18:52 AM, (seconder) addressing the House—
Point of order, Mr Baldwin, 9:19:08 AM
Closure of Member
Dr Kelly, 9:19:33 AM, moved—That the Member be no longer heard.
Question—put.
A division having been called for, in accordance with standing order 133 the division was deferred until the commencement of the next sitting.
Point of order, Mr Hockey, 9:19:48 AM
Speaker’s ruling
The Speaker ruled that the question before the Chair had to be deferred until the next sitting in accordance with standing order 133.
Dissent from ruling moved
Mr Hockey, 9:20:06 AM moved dissent from ruling
Closure of Member
Mr Albanese, 9:21:21 AM, moved—That the Member be no longer heard.
Question—put.
A division having been called for, in accordance with standing order 133 the division was deferred until the commencement of the next sitting.
Point of order, Mr Truss, 9:21:52 AM
Ms J. Bishop, 9:22:22 AM, (seconder) addressing the House—
Closure of Member
Mr Albanese, 9:22:34 AM, moved—That the Member be no longer heard.
Question—put.
A division having been called for, in accordance with standing order 133 the division was deferred until the commencement of the next sitting.
Question—That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from—put.
A division having been called for, in accordance with standing order 133 the division was deferred until the commencement of the next sitting.
Mr Ciobo, seeking to speak on motion to suspend standing orders, 9:24:53 AM—
Member ordered to withdraw
Speaker ordered Mr Ciobo to withdraw for 1 hour for defying the Chair, 9:25:36 AM
Mr Ciobo refusing to withdraw from the Chamber, the Speaker ordered the Serjeant-at-Arms to direct the Member to leave the Chamber, 9:26:32 AM, Point of order, Mr Hockey, 9:26:36 AM, Point of order, Mr Abbott, 9:26:59 AM
Member ordered to withdraw
Speaker ordered Mr Abbott to withdraw for 1 hour for reflecting on the Chair, 9:27:22 AM
The chamber door must have been worked off its hinges with all the opposition members on their way out. The shouting, cat-calls and general noisy hub-bub was tremendous and I have to say, quite akin to a Parliamentary form of civil disobedience. Then, at 12:40pm, it was on again:
Mr Hartsuyker, 12:40:45 PM
Member ordered to withdraw
The Deputy Speaker ordered Mr Hartsuyker to withdraw for 1 hour for defying the Chair, 12:44:05 PM, Point of order, Mr Albanese, 12:44:27 PM, Point of order, Mr Abbott, 12:45:01 PM, the Deputy Speaker ordered Mr Randall to remove a placard he was holding up from the House, 12:46:35 PM, Point of order, Mr Hockey, 12:46:45 PM, Point of order, Mr Albanese, 12:47:12 PM, Point of order, Mr Hockey, 12:47:35 PM, Point of order, Mr Albanese, 12:47:59 PM, Point of order, Mr Hockey, 12:48:19 PM, Mr Hartsuyker, 12:48:48 PM
Member named
The Deputy Speaker, 12:50:11 PM, named the Member for Cowper (Mr Hartsuyker) for defying the Chair.
Mr Albanese, 12:50:24 PM, moved—That the Member for Cowper be suspended from the service of the House.
Question—put.
A division having been called for, in accordance with standing order 133 the division was deferred until the commencement of the next sitting.
Point of order, Mr Abbott, 12:51:07 PM
Member ordered to withdraw
The Deputy Speaker ordered Mrs Gash to withdraw for 1 hour for reflecting on the Chair, 12:51:13 PM
Point of order, Mr Albanese, 12:51:56 PM, Point of order, Mr Abbott, 12:52:58 PM, Point of order, Mr Bevis, 12:53:45 PM, Point of order, Mr Hockey, 12:54:50 PM
Suspension of sitting
At 12.56 p.m., the Deputy Speaker left the Chair.
Resumption of sitting
At 2 p.m., the Speaker resumed the Chair.
The Speaker made a statement in relation to the days proceedings and conduct of Members of the House.
The time allotted for the debate having expired—
Question—That grievances be noted—put and passed, 2:01:10 PM.
Deferred quorum
In accordance with standing order 55(c) the Speaker counted the House, at the desire of Mr Lindsay, and declared a quorum was present. (see item No. 5, page3), 2:01:43 PM
Quorum declared present, 2:01:50 PM
Clearly, the opposition isn't at all comfortable with the government doing what government's do, which is run proceedings as it sees fit. I do believe, however, that Standing Order 133 is rather futile and need not be utilised if Friday sittings are to be the norm. It does beg the question though. Should the government alter the proceedings of Friday sittings, thereby giving in to a mob who, when in government themselves, ran anything BUT a democratic Parliament? I think not. So what is the answer? I'd suggest the moving of motions be allowed, whereby the Speaker can validly rule against those who care to make a mockery of the Westminister system. It's not necessary for the Prime Minister to be in the house if Question Time isn't being held, and while Fridays haven't usually been a sitting day, clearly not having QT is no loss. I also like the way Harry Jenkins handled today's fracas, which was as much a direct challenge to his authority as it was a tilt at the government.
