PM when you next attend the funeral of a veteran will you please explain to her why she is only entitled to 62.5% of 0.1% indexation of her husband's super and why you believe she is not worth the indexation applied to your super or to that of aged pensioners who may have never contirbuted to a pension scheme?

After watching the program this morning and listening to the PM's response to the DFRDB indexation question, I am now firmly of the opinion that we will get nothing from the current Labor Federal Government. Many years ago, we carried rifles as our weapons and bullets as our ammunition. Today, the ballot box has become our weapon and the vote our ammunition. TedMac

This was not about democracy, or a discussion with the PM. What happened to the top three questions we were given to believe would be the subject of the program. The there was the shameful treatment of David Jamison who was not allowed a right of reply - cut off by the so-called moderator. If questions that polled signficanly less than David's had the right to make further comment, why not David. It seems neither the PM or Deakin University believe in a Fair Go for all Australians.

I am disgusted at this blatant set up by yourself and Gillard! From your website I was led to believe that the top three questions, and not the oterr mundane matters, would be dealt with weith in detail! Being a Defence superannuate I was vitually interested in Gillard's answer to Dave Jamison, she lied, did not answer thee question at all and allowed him no time in response to her blatant hesitant response! I did not realize Universities are/were so Left wing dominated inn 2012! Shame on you Deakin and Gillard for this absolute travesty notf supposed enlightened debate! Bernie mcGurgan (A Vietnam Veteran)

I am deeply concerned that you have misled the public about the Hangout with the PM event.You promoted it as a voting contest to decide the top three questions to be put to the PM. As a reasonable man I believed that the three voted questions would allow the proposers an exchange with the PM. In fact you allowed others to participate and in doing that you took away the importance of the vote and the opportunity of the questioners to meaningfully engage the PM. And then there was a discrepancy by the facilitator where one of the three successful questioners (David Jamison) was cut off in his attempt to respond to the PM's answer. Result 11,000 unhappy voters. Not a Fair Go OurSay!

There's nothing like a Good Debate and certainly that was nothing like a Good Debate.

And theIr sheer hypocrisy in this is breathtaking!

I am dismayed this question even needs to be asked, and I admit I had no idea this disgrace had even occurred. Like the large majority of voters I was very unhappy with this governments policies. But now I am truly saddened to admit i am genuinely ashamed of this government. In the past I have voted for Labor. I cannot imagine voting for them again, they have lurched so far left, I cannot believe it.

I am surprised and disappointed that Deakin University would allow itself to be involved in such a sham. The second highest vote question received just enough time to ask the question then the adjudicator cut off any attempt for a supplementary question. Other questioners were allowed sufficient time to ask their question AND ask supplementaries. A clear case of bias and an unwillingness to allow Defence Force Retirees a fair hearing on their fair indexation grievance. Surely this was not done at the behest of the Prime Minister to yet again avoid the question?

The contempt with which the PM continues to treat those who have served this country is beyond belief. She might just be able to hold her own in caucus but she certainly is not (wo)man enough to face this issue with honesty and integrity. The fact that Deakin aided her in such a political fashion speaks heaps of their leftist support!