A leading sports betting agency is offering odds of $6 that Prime Minister Julia Gillard will enter the Big Brother house at some stage during the series.

Don't expect a curtain call on the set of Big Brother

We would have thought she’d be about a million-to-one, given she already spends enough of her time hanging around attention-seeking people of limited intelligence. OMG, did we really just say that?

What other unspeakable things do you feel like speaking about today?

Most commented


Show oldest | newest first

    • Queensland Observer says:

      05:34am | 14/08/12

      “...given she already spends enough of her time hanging around attention-seeking people of limited intelligence…”

      Like attracts like.

      Unspeakable things, eh?

      How about a blog on freedom of speech/freedom of the press? Haven’t seen much written about that. The Punch has been very quiet on that issue. Do you guys support the authoritarian methods of Labor/Greens? Are you so in love with Big Brother Conroy that you’d roll over and show your belly?

      As for the other unspeakable thing - Gillard’s past associations, activities and actions, as a ‘young and naive’ lawyer. Fertile ground there for a blog, yet it seems to be a big ‘No No’. What? Scared of the big stick? I thought reporters were brave and intrepid souls wanting to chase down the big story, wanting to get at the truth.

      Evidently not The Punch ones.

    • Gary Cox says:

      06:47am | 14/08/12

      Journalists are scared to mention the AWU/Slater & Gordon thing as when two journalists tried to cover the story in the past they lost their jobs. There is certainly fire beneath the smoke on this issue though and I’d urge a journalist with some balls to do some digging and open it up

    • gobsmack says:

      07:38am | 14/08/12


      You want “freedom of the press” and at the same time you are telling them what they should be writing.

      Start up your own media site if you want to sling mud.

    • QE12 says:

      07:51am | 14/08/12

      Queensland Observer -

      Let’s not hold our breath to see if the Australian press, including some who regularly write here, dare to report on Michael Smith’s 20 August address on allegations that the Labor government stifled press reporting on matters pertaining to Julia Gillard, Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt.

    • Trevor says:

      08:14am | 14/08/12

      Like the coalition are big supporters of individual expression? Everyone seems to forget that it was Ruddock who wanted to introduce sedition laws.

    • DJ says:

      08:24am | 14/08/12

      maybe michael smith’s employers were worried about he defamation case that would likely occur if he had persisted - they have lawyers you know. Rumour and opinion is not a defence nor proof.

    • dovif says:

      08:38am | 14/08/12


      I would not dare, the government have such a soft chin, that they have bribed the TV network 1 month before the election for good coverage (and they wonder why they cannot balance the budget and have to raise taxes from the middle class) . They have threatened newspaper with re-regulation. They have threatened internet with sensorship, I do not dare to start a website in case Julia want to start putting people in jail like Communist China

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      08:55am | 14/08/12

      What power you must have to crush such a sensational story. Not just in Australia, but overseas too.

    • Anubis says:

      08:57am | 14/08/12

      a ‘young and naive’ lawyer - not really. She was 37, not really young - and a partner in a law firm - doesn’t add much credence to the naive tag. She knew what was going on but kept getting pretty things from her boyfriend so all was OK.

    • Markus says:

      09:28am | 14/08/12

      @gobsmack, I thought they were fairly good suggestions for a site who has written multiple articles rubbishing the Finkelstein inquiry as an attack on the free press.

      Why defend the right to free press so ardently if you aren’t even going to put the right to good use?

    • pa_kelvin says:

      09:32am | 14/08/12

      Might happen in a few years…...dont hold your breath waiting tho’

    • Badjack says:

      10:37am | 14/08/12

      Read Pickerings blog site, that might help you

    • gobsmack says:

      11:23am | 14/08/12

      How pathetic to be cowered into silence by laws that aren’t even in place.
      I wouldn’t call grubby mud-slinging “good use”.  Anyone who’s been around the traps would have heard unsavory rumours concerning members from both sides of politics.  It is arguable whether digging up dirt from years ago serves the public interest.
      The fact that Qld Observer is aware of these “unspeakable things” suggests they have been spoken about somewhere.

    • Badjack says:

      05:56am | 14/08/12

      The esteemed AS panel did not address the biggest elephant in the room, David Manne. He will now spend countless millions of our money fighting whatever legislation is passed in the courts. If we are serious about stopping irregular arrivals there should be no right of appeal if their cases are rejected. They should also have addressed the issue of the smugglers Capt Emad and all his pals. They could have recommended (demanded) that the AFP and the Immigration Dept got off their collected arses and did their jobs.

    • Emmy says:

      06:06am | 14/08/12

      Give her a break, it not a problem if Ms Gillard appears on Big Brother, she is after all the role model for aspiring faux celebs.

    • Mouse says:

      10:45am | 14/08/12

      She will be right at home, a houseful of extroverted fakes! lol :o)

    • eRon says:

      06:38am | 14/08/12

      Julia Gillard and Chris Bowen are intent on perpetuating the fundamental dishonesty Labor has employed with the Australian people on irregular maritime arrivals.
      From the moment Rudd and Chris Evans announced the winding back of the hard won, and ultimately successful Howard government measures, Labor have lied, and fudged, and prevaricated. Never once (and still not) admitting their grave, and costly error.
      Now they have used a committee to formulate government policy by proxy, that has (in spite of a refugee advocate listing among the three) recommended almost the complete reinstatement of measures that had existed when Labor came to office. Labor now perversely claim to have acted in the national interest by installing the expert panel to dislodge their own obstruction to effective border control measures.
      In all my time observing Australian politics I have NEVER witnessed such a counter-intuitive, deceitful, cowardly, and cynical collection of dysfunction, and waste. The cost to the Australian people in many aspects, immeasurable this episode should remain etched on the memory of voters for decades as an example of what can happen when stupid ideological pride trumps common sense.

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      08:52am | 14/08/12

      Quite right. Well said.

      I always worry when I see Gillard Government spin:

      “Nauru is our solution” to the Asylum Seeker problem. Worry.

    • Anubis says:

      08:59am | 14/08/12

      I hope Julia is enjoying this supersized sh*t sandwich she is now being forced to eat over this matter.

    • Caedrel says:

      10:28am | 14/08/12

      The Tampa was the incident that set the benchmark for “deceitful, cowardly and cynical” behaviour for me… I deeply appreciated the heart behind Labor’s disbanding of the “Pacific Solution” (the same heart with which they finally apologised to the Stolen Generation), and I find it sad that they’ve succumbed to the politics of fear and division after such a hopeful start. That’s our fault as much as theirs, unfortunately, and all I can do is hope to keep on teaching my own children to look beyond their fears and insecurity and support all the brilliant things we still have in our wonderful country.

    • gobsmack says:

      11:26am | 14/08/12

      Labor went to the 2007 election promising to scrap the Pacific solution and won that election handsomely.
      Where’s the deceit in that?

    • TimB says:

      01:46pm | 14/08/12

      No deceit in that Gobsmack.

      The deceit came after, where they spent 4 years deliberately dowplaying the effects their policies were having and refusing to acknowledge that they made a mistake.

      Then finally once the truth could not be denied anymore, they blamed the Coalition for the impasse, an impasse generated by their stubbon refusal to return to policy which worked,

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      02:16pm | 14/08/12


      Point is you only dismantle something when you have another thing built and tested, ready to take its place.

      This is true of a border control system.

      This is also true of a carbon tax that forces a shift from coal to renewable energy, when there is no Renewable energy equivalent that’s up to the required job.

      It’s how the real world is worked by intelligent people.


      You’ll always have the Gillard Government brand new and improved Intervention and a policy that was described by Amnesty as “Ethnic Cleansing” in a statement where they compared Gillards Australia to the dark days of South African apartheid.

      Don’t forget to throw in the stubborn sticking to the Malaysian Concentration Camp solution for Asylum Seekers, described as illegal and inhumane by the highest court in Australia.

      Make the kids real proud.

    • Caedrel says:

      04:53pm | 14/08/12

      Babylon, if you always wait until you’ve got a “built and tested” replacement, then you’re not going to ever do very much. If I see something I believe is unjust and/or dangerous, I’d want to do what I can to stop it first, and figure out how to deal with the rest of it afterwards.

      I have no doubt that Labor has lost its way - I thought they did a great job through the GFC, but got obsessed with polls and perception shortly thereafter, and in chasing populist support they’ve been cutting off their nose to spit their face. They’ve listened to the unrelenting negativity of the Opposition and forgotten why we elected them in the first place. Heck, I think most of the electorate has forgotten why we elected them in the first place. I’m just hoping that some where along the way, by some miracle, we’ll get a politician with some shred of humility and compassion, and manages to hang onto that despite the snake pit that is politics. I’m not holding my breath, though (and no, I don’t think the Greens don’t qualify on this count either).

    • babylon in Canberra says:

      07:22pm | 14/08/12


      Regarding the GFC, the only thing the Gillard Government did was give everyone $900 bucks to buy a TV to listen to the $150 mill per year media spin machine they’d constructed.

      It was the inherited, Self sustaining Mining Industry that got Australia through the GFC.  ... China in other words.

    • TimB says:

      06:47am | 14/08/12

      I dunno. I could easilly see that tosspot Rudd resorting to this sort of stunt, but I would think Gillard would have a *touch* more class than that.

      If she does though, not only would it mark the act of an increasingly desperate politician, but it would cement her reputation as a political joke for all time.

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      09:24am | 14/08/12

      I think Julia already established that when the world saw her place herself within Obamas personal space during press calls.

      Obama postures as the solid family man with stoic Christian values.

      Pictures of our Julia ‘moving in’ just not on for the US.

    • Gregg says:

      07:10am | 14/08/12

      Old Slippery had been running a kind of BB and Julia much favoured in return for the favour so maybe that does giver her some ideas.

      Hopefully she will get more wized up on creating legislation and not act so much like a petulant child in wanting legislation tomorrow, all part of her act as which Julia do we have now?

      From what I have heard so far from the panel and then the vague variability from Aristotle, I would hope there are many more people about other than those of ” people of limited intelligence. “

      To have a government coming out and fully endorsing some recommendations and saying yep, lets have the legislation is a recipe for disaster.

      Yep, there are a few who have earnt the directions to the exit door and unfortunately we will forever be paying for them.

    • Knemon says:

      11:17am | 14/08/12

      “a petulant child” LOL

      ...and talking of exit doors, remind me again, who was acting like a petulant child when filmed trying to sprint from our parliament?

    • cdlr says:

      07:14am | 14/08/12

      hope all the pollies are well rested after there little break its a hard life they endure waking up every day knowing the lies they have to spin and keeping a straight face i feel for them

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:22am | 14/08/12

      For a thing nobody professes to care about, y’all love clamoring on about BB12.  Either admit you love to hate it, or do what you say you want to and STFU about it.


      At first blush, I think they’ve actually got the best cadre of contestants we’ve seen for a while.  If the young geeky guy isn’t the juvenile offender, I’ll eat my shorts.

    • ronny jonny says:

      07:32am | 14/08/12

      Not long now until she is evicted from the house. It’s just a matter of how much further damage will Julia and her fellow housemates do before they are gone.

    • stephen says:

      07:48am | 14/08/12

      I keep seeing pictures of Julia at shopping centre carparks and at Holocaust Museums, (she would be the only person, too, who was caught under flash there with a grin on her face) and at the showgrounds ... wherever they are.
      But now the Panel has given her some work to do.

      And Mr./Ms. Moderator, am I allowed to say ‘Diddums’ now ?

    • Gregg says:

      07:59am | 14/08/12

      So do the Punch team enter the house or cannot get in some mornings?
      Near eight AM and seems as though only a few comments made very early on about two hours previously have been posted.

      Maybe a few of them have had the chop from the house already!

    • Bluey says:

      08:20am | 14/08/12

      Tuesday punch poll:

      So the wife has just finished reading the 50 shades of grey series (in four nights) with no noticeable difference to our sex life i.e nothing.  Is she:

      A) having an affair;
      B) has a vagina of ice;
      C) just not into it after 2 kids etc.

      Hint: she went to a catholic all girls school.

      Thought would be appreciated!

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:46am | 14/08/12

      I’m not sure mate, but I guarantee it’s your fault.

    • Cooey says:

      09:49am | 14/08/12

      Try brushing your teeth once in a while and maybe have a shower.

    • M says:

      10:14am | 14/08/12

      You should probably wax your scrote.

      Or, you should read 50 shades yourself and emulate the bahaviour of the sadistic billionaire.

    • Ally says:

      10:20am | 14/08/12

      Maybe she actually found it about as arousing as a pap smear. It’s a pretty attrocious piece of crap.

    • miloinacup says:

      10:53am | 14/08/12

      D) she realised what a load of utter crap the books were, and doesn’t get turned on by the thought of being abused by a sadistic asshole with mummy issues.

    • Emmy says:

      11:05am | 14/08/12

      Bluey… you are just trying to have a cheap shot at catholic girls. Get used to Mrs Palmer and her 5 daughters

    • Tim says:

      11:05am | 14/08/12

      D) going hard on the “Ladies Implement” (Thanks M).

    • M says:

      11:23am | 14/08/12

      Haha, milo, the books wouldn’t be such an outrageous sales success if women weren’t turned on by that sort of thing.

    • M says:

      11:49am | 14/08/12

      Catholic girls are seriously sexually inhibited though.

    • Elphaba says:

      11:56am | 14/08/12

      “as arousing as a pap smear.”

      Gold.  I see the women reading it on the train, I am so embarrassed for them.  At least get it on a Kindle, that way no one knows.

      How controversial is the sex in the book?  is there violence?  I am curious as to why it’s so freely available… is it because a woman wrote it, or is it fairly tame by today’s standards?

    • Ally says:

      12:09pm | 14/08/12

      M - I read somewhere that while the sales for the first book in the series are phenomenal, only about 40 per cent of people then buy the second and then 30 per cent buy the third, suggesting that a lot of people just read it to see what all the fuss is about.

      But yeah, obviously the same women that found Edward attractive and not a psycho in Twilight feel the same way about the guy in these books. Not surprising given the series started out as Twilight fanfiction.

      Seriously ladies, if you want to read a naughty book there’s plenty of well written stuff out there without resorting to this tripe.

    • bella starkey says:

      12:10pm | 14/08/12

      maybe you are bad at sex

    • Slothy says:

      12:31pm | 14/08/12

      You really do seem to spend a lot of time telling women what they do and don’t enjoy M. I’m not entirely sure it’s a healthy habit.

      As for me, I know nothing gets me hotter than dialogue like: “I’m a sadist, Ana. I like to whip little brown-haired girls like you because you all look like the crack whore—my birth mother.”

      BRB, off to take care of myself.

    • M says:

      12:36pm | 14/08/12

      And bella is straight out with the sexism.

      Ally, from my casual observations of women my own age, it’s a minority of women who don’t like that sort of thing.

    • miloinacup says:

      12:41pm | 14/08/12

      M - most of the women I know who have read the books did so only because there was so much hype around it.

      However - I think it’s great that people are getting a little kinkier with their sex lives. The problem with these books are the fact that they are written so horribly, and their male lead is a sadistic selfish twat being sold as a romantic “diamond in the rough”. Women actually think this bloke is romantic, and want to be in similar relationships (I wonder if you took away the billion dollars and he was just Joe Blow from down the street they would feel the same way). A girl on facebook complained that he was a wanker and got a ton of responses from other women saying stuff like “read the rest of the books - it makes sense later on!” and “he just had a rough childhood, it’s not his fault!” Like as though being hot and rich is an automatic pass when you’re an abusive tool.

      And this is why we can’t have nice things. It makes me embarrased to be part of the female gender sometimes.

    • M says:

      12:47pm | 14/08/12

      Slothy, the sales numbers speak for themselves. It’s not my problem if you don’t like it

    • M says:

      01:02pm | 14/08/12

      Milo, chicks dig jerks.

    • Slothy says:

      01:05pm | 14/08/12

      Exactly miloinacup. BDSM - hot. Opening up the world of BDSM to someone - also hot. An abusive and controlling dom working out his childhood dysfunctions on an inexperienced sub and springing a 24/7 Dom/sub contract on her after ONE session of light spanking? Significantly less hot, and not something someone should be using as their entrance into the world of kink.

      (A character constantly referring to her Inner Goddess and repeated uses of the phrase “Holy cow!” - also pretty unsexy.)

    • Slothy says:

      01:13pm | 14/08/12

      Others have pointed out the ‘what the hell’ factor driving the sales numbers, and the low retention rates that suggest that a lot of people aren’t actually getting all that excited by these books.

      Even more have pointed out that they don’t personally find this dreck arousing.

      But you’re the one making blanket statements about what ‘women’ - all three billion of us, not ‘some’ or ‘many’ or ‘certain subsets’ - find hot. You do it all the time, hell, you’re doing it over on the Big Brother thread just today. Frankly, it’s offputting and makes you look like a clueless tool to anyone who isn’t a part of your little heartiste circlejerk.

    • miloinacup says:

      01:18pm | 14/08/12

      M - I wouldn’t say that. I’d say girls with self-esteem issues dig jerks.

    • M says:

      01:39pm | 14/08/12

      Slothy, just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

    • M says:

      01:47pm | 14/08/12

      And you guys rouse on me for making blanket statements?

      Funny how when a woman goes for a man that isn’t approved of by the fem-hoards she automatically has self esteem issues, isn’t it?

    • miloinacup says:

      02:07pm | 14/08/12

      M - that article was such rubbish. It isn’t a case of “Christian and Ana are so in sync! He knows everything she wants/likes without her having to tell him!”, it’s a case of “Ana is an idiot who has no idea what she wants or likes, so Christian does whatever HE likes to her, and because she’s so stupid she convinces herself that it’s what SHE wants too.”

      The fact that so many people can’t see that makes me want to scream. Like I said before, it’s great that the book (however poorly written) is opening up a sexual awakening for some people, but trying to sell it as a romance novel is fucking dangerous.

    • Slothy says:

      02:39pm | 14/08/12

      That’s a very nice article M, but you see, I’m not a 19 year old girl. I don’t need a man to ‘put money in my bank account’ and ‘get me to eat’. I get a desire to be taken care of by an appreciative lover, but that kind of infantilsation is a massive turn-off.

      “Slothy, just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. “

      Sure M. You keep saying that all women want a controlling jerk who has to remind them to take the basic steps necessary to STAY ALIVE. I will say that some women might like that, but plenty more will find it patronising and unsexy. I wonder which of these propositions looks more reasonable.

      (PS - I disagree with miloinacup’s ‘self esteem’ statement, but at least she acknowledged that there are sub-sets of women as opposed to one huge lady-part monolith, so she’s still doing better than you.)

    • miloinacup says:

      02:52pm | 14/08/12

      M - oh please. If you let your partner treat you like crap, you have self esteem issues. Regardless of whether you are male or female. Nice try though.

    • M says:

      02:52pm | 14/08/12

      <so Christian does whatever HE likes to her, and because she’s so stupid she convinces herself that it’s what SHE wants too.>

      I was under the impression that this was part of the reason of it’s success, that women fantasise about being dominated by a man?

    • AdamC says:

      03:12pm | 14/08/12

      @miloinacup says:

      “M - oh please. If you let your partner treat you like crap, you have self esteem issues. Regardless of whether you are male or female. Nice try though.”

      I agree with you here. However, I think you have missed the point about the role of sexual fantasies. Many readers of 50 Shades of Grey would never dream of entering masochistic relationships in real life. That does not mean they cannot find the fantasy of doing to quite exciting.

    • miloinacup says:

      03:19pm | 14/08/12

      Yeah, but this bloke didn’t just control her in the bedroom. He controlled every part of her life.

      This book is popular not so much because of the sexual content, but because it plays to the fantasy that you can change someone if you stick it out long enough. He’s a character who is mysterious, who seemingly can’t be tamed, who no other woman has managed to ‘catch’ yet. The ultimate prize - how ‘special’ are you if you can manage to capture the heart of a man who seemingly has none?

      BDSM itself isn’t that dangerous - while the sub is seemigly at the mercy of the dom, the sub actually has all the power in the sense that whenever they say ‘stop’, everything stops. THIS story is different - he’s manipulating in every sense of the word; they have arguments but he always wins and she winds up questioning herself and whether she is actually right in her opinions on things.

      The whole bloody thing is screwed up in my opinion.

    • M says:

      03:40pm | 14/08/12

      “he’s manipulating in every sense of the word; they have arguments but he always wins and she winds up questioning herself and whether she is actually right in her opinions on things.

      That sounds like plenty of relationships i’ve seen.

    • miloinacup says:

      03:54pm | 14/08/12

      M - if it happens occasionally then yeah, it’s normal. I’ve argued with my boyfriend and afterwards gone ‘hmm, maybe he had a point’. But if it happens all the time and you start agreeing with everything they say because they make you feel like you couldn’t possibly be right about anything, then something is afoot.

      Anyway, I’m sick of analysing this stupid book.

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      08:36am | 14/08/12

      I had to endure a popular current affair programme for Australians with IQ’s in the double digits, that specialises in superficial surface level analysis last night. The Gillard Government, reaping the rewards of spending $150 million plus per year to influence the media, was able to blame all the electricity price rises on the utility companies.

      As I have shown previously, carbon pricing represents 50 percent of the increases to our bills and is equally responsible for the soaring costs.

    • Knemon says:

      11:23am | 14/08/12

      “As I have shown previously, carbon pricing represents 50 percent of the increases to our bills and is equally responsible for the soaring costs”

      Babylon…repeating bullshit over and over does not make it fact.

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      12:51pm | 14/08/12

      Crap = any fact inconsistent with Gillard Government bull.

      I said at the time I was quoting from AEMC, the Australian Energy Market Commission.

    • Tim says:

      01:07pm | 14/08/12

      and your analysis is still horrible.

      As I’ve shown previously, carbon pricing is still only a small percentage of people’s bills and a tiny amount of people’s discretionary spending. The majority of price rises in recent years are due to infrastructure upgrades necessitated by increases in peak loading.

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      02:30pm | 14/08/12

      Tim ....Not so ....

      Where you just make statements, previously I laid out the items against which the charges were collected. Twice.

      I showed the amounts were 50 percent of the increase in bills for 2012.

      And that the carbon pricing added 15 percent to the average bill. Next year it will add between 10 to 15 percent again.

      The States and utility companies were asked by the Federal Government to prepare their infrastructures and distribution networks for a population of 30 million. Because the Federal Government did not want to ‘waste the boom’ by not realizing the ‘Big Australia.’. Any of this ring a bell Tim?

      Now the Gillard Government is trying to shag the States and utilities with the facts concerning their very own program and the instructions they gave out.

      How insidious.

    • andye says:

      02:32pm | 14/08/12

      @Babylon in Canberra - “As I have shown previously, carbon pricing represents 50 percent of the increases to our bills and is equally responsible for the soaring costs.”

      As you know, the price rises and reasons are published so everyone can see them. 50% of THIS YEARS increase is the carbon tax. The massive price rises over the last few years are due to other factors.

      You know this, but you deliberately present your information in a completely misleading way.

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      03:13pm | 14/08/12

      I presented the information that I obtained from AEMC.

      This information is readily available to those who google why does my electricity bill keep increasing.

      Since 2007 the Labor Government has been driving infrastructure in utility supplies, which as driven up prices.

      Abbott critised this in a speech well over a year ago.

      But now 50 percent of our electricity cost increases relate to carbon pricing.

      The Gillard Governments stubborn approach to move from coal directly to insufficient renewable energy will continue to deliver higher utility costs for Australians, because as well as not being good enough, renewable energy is so expensive and will be for some considerable time.

      What Gillards present electricity propaganda war is doing now is shutting down her program for the development of infrastructure and distribution in favour of her carbon tax.

      That’s bad news later for you Aussie.

    • andye says:

      03:43pm | 14/08/12

      @babylon - “Since 2007 the Labor Government has been driving infrastructure in utility supplies, which as driven up prices.”

      Can you back this up? I am not sure where this is coming from.

    • Tim says:

      04:12pm | 14/08/12

      I’m not sure whether you’re stupid or trying to be deliberately misleading.

      Either way, your reading of the stats is horribly infantile and wrong.

      Here’s some more statistics for you:

      The average Australian electricity bill is 2% of total household spending.

      The average Australian hotel and restaurant bill is 7% of household spending.

      OMG, how are we possibly going to survive the increase due to the Carbon tax, we’ll all be rooned I tells ya. We may have to only eat out two nights a week instead of three.

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      04:14pm | 14/08/12


      Check out Abbotts budget Reply speech.

      He blew the lid on the rising cost of electricity under Labor ages ago.

    • andye says:

      06:26pm | 14/08/12

      @Babylon in Canberra - “Check out Abbotts budget Reply speech.”

      Hmmmm. Is that the only source? Seriously?

      Also, where is this? I am struggling to find anything in the transcripts I found apart from “ooga booga carbon tax will get ya!”

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      09:54am | 14/08/12

      The problem with ‘Studies’ is those who pay for the analysis.

      Studies show ‘Electricity increases are the fault of needless infrastructure improvements and development.’
      (no guesses who would be paying the analysts for that type of result)

    • Anubis says:

      10:09am | 14/08/12

      @ M - go a bit further into the article and you will see the motivator

      “Young men need jobs so they can pay child support”

    • M says:

      10:55am | 14/08/12

      Anubis, that stuck me as particularly insidious.

    • Joel B1 says:

      09:03am | 14/08/12

      Funny how PM Gillard has not sought an injunction against Pickering.

      Surely what he’s saying is libelous?

      Things like “hide the source and terminus of the stolen funds”

    • Suzanne says:

      09:21am | 14/08/12

      Gillard is desperate and will do anything for media coverage that is not bad.

      Given she is banned from shopping centres, she will do anything for high managed media appearance

    • Mouse says:

      09:52am | 14/08/12

      Pity they can’t ban her from TV and radio!!  lol :o)

    • simonfromlakemba says:

      11:49am | 14/08/12

      “she will do anything for high managed media appearance “

      Could say the same about Abbott, Mr hard hat and truck license!

    • Mouse says:

      12:40pm | 14/08/12

      but SFL, at least Abbott looks cute in a hardhat!  lol :o)

    • simonfromlakemba says:

      01:22pm | 14/08/12

      Abbott cute? holy sh*t..

    • Mouse says:

      03:45pm | 14/08/12

      SFL, that is the answer I would expect from you, of course, being a man and all!!  hahahahahaha   ;o)

    • AdamC says:

      09:26am | 14/08/12

      There is a paywalled story in the Australian today about Labor’s half-baked plans to cut the company tax rate by scrapping certain deductions and concesssions.

      Whilst, in general, I agree with the idea of cutting company taxes, I wonder if that should be the tax cut priority of the moment.  I see two reasons to cut company taxes. One, people should get to keep as much of their own income as possible, rather than having to give it to the government; and, two, because cutting company taxes encourages companies to increase investment and wealth creation.

      The first reasons applies to all taxes, so any tax cuts will provide that benefit. The second point, while valid, is limited. This is because company tax is only paid by profitable companies in proportion to their profits. Highly profitable companies creating strong returns on equity are likely to continue to invest and seek and obtain capital. How would cutting company tax from 30% to 28% really be the key factor behind a highly-profitable company expanding or creating operations in this country?

      I see lots of other state-based taxes as being much more problematic than company tax. Stamp duties and payroll taxes spring to mind. Instead of cutting company taxes, why not give the states a slice of the pie, on condition they axe some of their really toxic taxes?

    • Tim says:

      11:08am | 14/08/12

      I thought they already did that when the GST came into force.

      Seems some state taxes just don’t want to die.

    • gobsmack says:

      11:32am | 14/08/12

      I haven’t seen the proposal but maybe the idea is to simplify the tax regime and reduce compliance costs.  Businesses routinely complain about having to deal with red tape.

    • Chris says:

      09:46am | 14/08/12

      How fantastic have the London games been?  Clearly the greatest Olympics ever.

    • Tim says:

      11:09am | 14/08/12

      the Sydney games were clearly superior.

      I mean all the big finals in London have been on between 3am and 7am, horrible programming.

    • Chris says:

      01:46pm | 14/08/12

      Compared to London the Sydney games looked like a rural primary school sports carnival. You can’t even compare the two. In 50 years time London will still be the benchmark by which all Olympics are judged, while noone ever even mentions the Sydney games just 12 years on because they were mediocre at best.

    • Tim says:

      02:52pm | 14/08/12

      Hmmm I can’t remember Jaques Rogge uttering those words “Best Ever” for London during the closing ceremony?

      “Happy and Glorious”???  ohhhhhh, it must burn.

      I will say that London was passable though, but only because they hired most of the important staff that had been involved in the Sydney Games.

      In fifty years no one will remember either games with much more than a passing thought.

    • Huey says:

      09:56am | 14/08/12

      @ Anubis..Thanks for that detail..makes the “young and naive” quote a killer.

    • Shane* says:

      11:00am | 14/08/12

      Down in Melbourne, our Herald Sun announced in Late Feb/Early March or thereabouts that it would move to a Paywall/Digital Pass system.

      I signed up for the “2 Month Free Trial.”

      Apparently it’s going to expire tomorrow, after around 6 months of free access. Six. Methinks the click numbers weren’t quite what the Hun editors were hoping for.

      I have no idea what business model will end up making journalism viable again, or even if that is possible. But I can tell you that it’s not a digital paywall when your chief rival offers effectively the same content for free.

    • simonfromlakemba says:

      11:54am | 14/08/12

      Why would you want to pay for biased drivel dressed up as journalism? Same as if the Age went and did a paywall.

      Australia’s newspaper are just opinion magazines, no facts or investigative journalism these days.

    • M says:

      12:25pm | 14/08/12

      I dunno, my digital subscription to the Australian is worth it.

    • AdamC says:

      01:34pm | 14/08/12

      I do not think that paywalls are a sustainable model for the media, but I have an Australian iPad subscription. I tried to resist, but there are no other media outlets, at least no other print outlets, who take any serious interest in policy debate.

      The Fairfax rags do not seem to think their readers understand basic economics, among other concepts, and are slowly morphing into snobby lifestyle publications. (Their online offerings are especially fluffy.) The likes of news.com.au are fine for celebrity gossip, but that’s about it. The ABC takes some interest in policy, but rarely actually ‘breaks’ stories. So what is one left with?

    • Bailey says:

      01:44pm | 14/08/12

      It’s worse than that.
      Ltd. News prints outright lies and the right wing poster here use them to bolster their meaningless arguments.
      babble on is a prime example.

    • M says:

      02:05pm | 14/08/12

      AdamC, it proves the maxim that people will pay for good content. I bought a subscription for the same reasons as yourself.

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      02:48pm | 14/08/12

      Excuse me Bailey….

      The left undoubtedly has the upper hand on media friendly outlets.

      The Punch for example. You only have to look back at the pictures accompanying the articles, to see they use derogatory pictures for Abbott and mainly flattering ones for Gillard.

      One out of every three of my comments is not published.

      On top of these media friendlies, Gillards got

      - 1600 staff employed by federal government departments and agencies in media, communications, marketing and public affairs roles.
      - 60 media advisers are dedicated to federal ministers
      - the total number of public affairs staff in government is more than FIVE TIMES the estimated 300 journalists.

      In short $150 million dollars worth of tax payers money spent per year telling us ‘Gillard is Right, Gillard is Good.’

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      03:08pm | 14/08/12

      I use Google News to get around paywalls….....

    • M says:

      12:32pm | 14/08/12

      I’m not surprised. I pay over a third of my income in rent each week, and I’m working full time.

    • miloinacup says:

      12:58pm | 14/08/12

      This bloke is just lazy, let’s be real. I don’t understand the comment about how he would be able to move out if he found a girlfriend, either. Planning on sponging off her as well?

    • M says:

      01:21pm | 14/08/12

      I wouldn’t say sponging off the girlfriend, possibly splitting the rent bill?

    • Elphaba says:

      01:25pm | 14/08/12

      @M, me too.  And yet, I can make the sacrifices necessary to continue to live out of home.  I shop savvy, I go without and I have a roommate (who is awesome, but I got lucky).  He can live out of home, if he makes a few sacrifices.  There are plenty of people doing demanding degrees and working at the same time.  I still call bullshit.

      This guy is making a bunch of excuses that have no basis in reality.  Any bloke who looks for the ‘first time’ to move out of home with a significant other, is a man who should ring some serious alarm bells in any potential spouse.

      Danger, Will Robinson…

    • M says:

      01:50pm | 14/08/12

      Hehe, honestly, I can’t defend him. I agree Elph. I was out at 19 and never looked back.

    • miloinacup says:

      02:16pm | 14/08/12

      Pffffft - he apparently can’t afford to even give his mother money towards board or food or bills as it is…I’m fairly certain any girl silly enough to move out with him would be footing majority of the expenses.

    • Elphaba says:

      02:19pm | 14/08/12

      @M, the thing is, he doesn’t have to move out permanently.  Just try a share housing arrangement for 6 months.  6 months of washing his own clothes, cooking his own meals, vacuuming his own floor.  This guy needs to be mildly self-sufficient otherwise he’ll have trouble meeting anyone unless she’s exactly like his mother.  Which just makes him all the more creepy, if that’s what he’s looking for…

    • gobsmack says:

      02:27pm | 14/08/12

      I was on the dole when I first moved out of home.

      I was poor but happy.

    • Tim says:

      02:33pm | 14/08/12

      What’s wrong with staying at home until you have the funds to move out comfortably?

      I’ve never got this attitude that the earlier you move out of home, the more independent and wonderful you are.

      I think the most sensible thing any young person can do is stay at home and save money as long as your parents will have you.

    • M says:

      02:59pm | 14/08/12

      Anyone who’s still at home past the age of 25 has issues.

    • Elphaba says:

      03:04pm | 14/08/12

      @Tim, do you really think that’s what this guy is doing?

      If he was, his mother wouldn’t be half-heartedly talking about him moving out.

      Not paying board because you contribute to the running of the household by buying food, paying for utilities, cooking, cleaning, putting petrol in the car, etc etc, is one thing.  Sponging off your mum is quite another.

    • Tim says:

      04:20pm | 14/08/12

      I’m not saying this guy is doing that but everytime a story like this comes up, people come out and say “Well I moved out of home at 20”.
      And then someone else says ” That’s nothing, I moved out of home when I was 12”.

      I really don’t get it or attitudes like M’s.

    • Ben C says:

      04:48pm | 14/08/12

      @ M

      “Anyone who’s still at home past the age of 25 has issues.”

      Have to disagree with you there. I’m still living at home at age 27, not for comfort or convenience, but the fact that my mother is a recently diagnosed epileptic. Seeing as she seems to be handling it OK now, provided she stays on her medication, I’m looking at (finally) moving out on my own, or with my fiance.

    • Joel B1 says:

      12:35pm | 14/08/12

      The press has been less than enthusiastic about Abbott’s triumph.

      Some say “rewarded for his intransigence” others say “making political capital of of a chaotic mess”.

      They fail in two aspects.

      First, this will save lives and help those real refugees who are stuck in UN camps for decades.

      Second, the ALP, the Greens and PM Gillard were wrong. Which shouldn’t be at all surprising as PM Gillard manages to be wrong about most nearly everything.

      PS Well done Tony Abbott, my friends in the Sudanese community in Hobart reckon you’ve got the makings of a first class PM.

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      01:00pm | 14/08/12

      Here here!

      The Sudanese are clearly a very clever community

    • Tim says:

      01:00pm | 14/08/12

      Both of them are still wrong.

      Even under Howard’s scheme most of the people who hopped on boats ended up being allowed into Australia or neighbouring nations.
      It just looked good because none of the boats ever actually arrived in Australia and the Navy was working as a shuttle service.

      We need a policy that will actually deter people from making the boat journey and until the Refugee convention is revisited it just isn’t going to happen.

    • AJ in Perth says:

      01:46pm | 14/08/12


      95% of 3000 = 2700
      60% of 100 = 60

      So even I swap the %‘s ...

      60% of 3000 = 1800
      95% of 100 = 95

      So it’s not about the %, it’s about the numbers.  Yes?

      ps - I haven’t used exact arrival numbers, this is for illustrative purposes only

    • Tim says:

      02:45pm | 14/08/12

      The cost of the Nauru processing centre is predicted to be $1.2-$1.4B over four years.
      Far too expensive and we’re going to be keeping people in detention for years.

      People will have a choice of waiting in dirty refugee camps or being put up by the Australian taxpayer for a few years. I don’t see where the disincentive is going to come from.

    • AJ in Perth says:

      04:04pm | 14/08/12


      My reply was solely in relation to your comment saying “Even under Howard’s scheme most of the people who hopped on boats ended up being allowed into Australia”.  Because it incorrectly implies, like many others on many other occasions, that just as many asylum seekers that came on boats were allowed to settle in Aus irrespective of policy.

      In reply to your comment(s) in general, either way cost billions, either way our navy is a shuttle service.  The difference in my opinion is that queue jumpers will not be given preferential treatment to the detriment of those asylum seekers following due process anymore, like Joel B1 said.  Whether it is effective as a deterrent, only time will tell.

    • Tim says:

      04:27pm | 14/08/12

      AJ in Perth,
      you’re assuming that Howard’s policies stopped the boats from coming which I’m not 100% sold on although they were obviously better than what we’ve got at present.

      But anyway,
      We don’t have to be spending billions on this. Hell, even the ALP’s Malaysia deal while obviously flawed was only going to cost $80million.

      Both parties policies fail to address the issue that we shouldn’t be locking people up for multiple years. We need a deterrant where anyone arrives by boat will be immediately sent back. Unfortunately, we can’t do this without revisiting the Refugee Convention.

    • Joel B1 says:

      12:42pm | 14/08/12

      PM Gillard, the master of the unintended consequences (CO2 Tax):

      “Plant shutdown to avoid carbon liability and the resultant change in network flows due to those plant shutdowns and reconfiguring of the generation supply have contributed far greater increases than had previously been forecast even within the market”

      I’d like to say I’d told you so. Oh wait, I did…

    • Tim says:

      01:04pm | 14/08/12

      that’s actually exactly what the carbon tax is meant to do.
      No unintended consequences, simply demand reducing due to people wanting to save money.
      What’s your point?

    • Joel B1 says:

      02:00pm | 14/08/12

      Tim, good point, except…

      “far greater increase than had previously been forecast” means “unintended”.

      And, unlike you, I like a Government to have at least a vague idea of what it’s doing.

    • Tim says:

      04:00pm | 14/08/12

      No unintended is a consequence that wasn’t predicted. This was predicted, the amount was simply off.

      And unlike you, I don’t go jumping up and down about mistakes that are minor in nature and have small effects (and only from one side of politics).

    • Drew(Darlinghurst) says:

      12:47pm | 14/08/12

      I’ve come to the conclusion that News Ltd Journalists are “trolls” fishing for outrageous comments. Attacks on the Prime Minister and the Labor Party are really pathetic when the alternative is scary.

      Lets help build an Abbott proof fence !

      Gillard 2013

    • Bailey says:

      01:26pm | 14/08/12

      Too true Drew
      You’d think they would at least let some of the comments calling out the blatant conservative posters and writers lies through.

      The Murdoch propaganda machine has a lot to answer for.

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      01:10pm | 14/08/12


      So the Gillard Government rewards the Greens loyalty with a public ‘rubbishing’ and your lot respond by showing them support in the polls?

      The scorpion and the frog.

      Head bangers or what?

    • Knemon says:

      03:38pm | 14/08/12

      “your lot respond by showing them support in the polls”

      WTF are you on about Babylon?

      ...and what’s wrong with head-bangers?

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      04:20pm | 14/08/12

      The 5 point shift for Gillard has been attributed to Greenies, despite Labor kicking their guts out only the week before?

    • Ian1 says:

      04:01pm | 14/08/12

      ... meanwhile in Qld, Greenies are finally realising that if the State can’t pay it’s bills, their treasured “conservation” may fall under threat or potentially be sold off to private enterprise.

      There will always be a limit as to how much people are willing to have their net worth depreciated by the unsustainable borrowings of Labor governments.  Sooner or later, debt must be serviced and shock horror, asset sales are often the fastest way of paying down debt.

      If only every political agitator understood that government revenue underpins government expenditure.  Further, that government debt reduces the government’s ability to apply those revenues to expenditure, current or otherwise.

    • stephen says:

      07:38pm | 14/08/12

      Just spotted it ; tonight on 2 at 10pm is a doco on Jeff Carter, who was a very good photographer.
      He justified - sorry, that’s wrong, I meant excused -  his photo taking with a very politically incorrect, (and probably wrong) scenario ; nevertheless, his Art is superb.


Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more



Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter